Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 24 January.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 24 January.

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Political Developments

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his talks with the constitutional parties about future political developments in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am continuing to explore, with the main constitutional parties, the possibility of formal talks encompassing all the issues that they consider relevant. My aim is to establish a basis for such talks that would safeguard everyone's essential interests, and I plan to have further exchanges in the near future to take matters forward.

Mr. Mitchell: May I and, I am sure, the whole House join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on the recent happy news of his engagement? May I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's skill and patience in trying to ensure that the talks with the constitutional parties about future political developments in Northern Ireland move ahead? Is he more optimistic now than he was last autumn that some progress may be made?

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I do not know whether there is any interaction between the two processes in which I have been involved. I remain firmly convinced that all those people with whom I have had talks are seriously committed to the discussions, on the basis that if formal talks can be

launched in a framework satisfactory to all, the process could make a major contribution to the peace, stability and good government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: On a day when the world is having the most vivid and terrible reminders about where claims to a neighbour's territory can lead, is the Secretary of State aware that we are happy that he is engaged in these talks, especially as the people of Northern Ireland have endured so much over the years because of similar claims being legitimised in the eyes of terrorists? May we express the hope that he will listen to wiser counsel than some of his predecessors have done?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further understand that unionists are deeply disappointed that Dublin's intransigence blocked the progress that he was making to such a swift end last July? Is he aware that many people in the unionist community are worried that this is simply a spinning out of the talks until the next general election? Therefore, will he try to move the matter ahead as quickly as he can?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks and his welcome for the talks that are taking place. The approach that we have been pursuing in recent months has been dictated by the fact that political parties on both sides of the community divide in Northern Ireland want discussions to cover matters that must necessarily involve the Irish Government. Any talks intended to address all the relevant relationships must be set up on a basis with which all concerned are comfortable. It is not a question of one side or the other having preconditions or creating obstacles. Conflicting positions have yet to be reconciled.

Mr. Kilfedder: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his engagement and also on the patience that he has demonstrated in pursuing these talks? I am sure that people in Northern Ireland will wish to join me in thanking him and wishing him all the best for both reasons. Has Dublin agreed to any conditions for beginning its involvement in discussions or talks on political developments in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and hope that they extend to the talks in which we are now engaged.
I think that it is generally understood that there is a difference of view over the circumstances in which the north-south strand of any talks should start. That impasse has not yet been resolved, but I hope that it will be.

Local Government

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the reform of local government.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We have no present plans to reform the general structure of local government in Northern Ireland. However, we remain ready to consider any proposals for transferring political power and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland on a basis that would be likely to prove widely acceptable and which guaranteed fair and equitable treatment for everyone in the local authority area.

Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he take this opportunity to clarify the role of the local government boundary commissioner, whose appointment was announced yesterday? There is some confusion in Northern Ireland. Is the boundary commissioner's role simply to amend the boundaries of existing wards or can he vary the number of wards within each district council; and is there any prospect of an increase or decrease in the number of Northern Ireland district councils before the next local government elections?

Dr. Mawhinney: It is for the local government commissioner—under statutes with which he is familiar and according to which he must operate—to hold consultations and then to make recommendations. He makes those recommendations within the legal structures that govern his appointment.

Mr. Bill Walker: When examining the position of local government in Northern Ireland, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the evidence that we on the mainland will also be examining the structure of local government? There may now be a possibility of removing some of the anomalies in this unitary Parliament, in the constitution and in the United Kingdom, and this may be the time to set about making such changes.

Dr. Mawhinney: I hear what my hon. Friends says and I acknowledge his consistent interest in these matters. He will be aware, however, that the structure and powers of local government in Northern Ireland are considerably different from those pertaining in Great Britain. The linkage that I think that my hon. Friend's question implied, therefore, does not necessarily hold.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that democracy in local government was dealt a great blow at the city hall in Belfast last week, when members of the minority party were refused the right to speak on substantive matters? Does he accept that the committee system continues to preclude them from participation and does he agree that that puts back the day when reorganisation—if it can be called that—can be contemplated? Does he further agree that any such reorganisation would be part of the ongoing inter-party negotiations that are now in progress under the directorship of the Secretary of State?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to be able to say that I bear no responsibility whatever for the behaviour of Belfast city councillors. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that certain people were prohibited from speaking, but it may be the case.
If we are to give more power to local authorities, it must be done, as I said, on a basis that is widely acceptable and ensures fair and equitable treatment for all in the local council area. It is clear that that is not the case in all areas of the Province at present. The ability to make progress, as the hon. Gentleman implies, lies very much in the hands of individual councils.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the greatest reform that he could make to local government in Northern Ireland would be the removal of the mouthpieces of the Provisional IRA from our council chambers? Will the Government take steps to ban Sinn Fein from local government?

Dr. Mawhinney: The views represented by Sinn Fein are not views that either the hon. Gentleman or I would wish

to endorse in any way, or to be associated with. About 10 per cent. of the electorate of Northern Ireland vote for Sinn Fein candidates. As for the activities relating to Sinn Fein, at least some are in the process of being considered in the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

Tourism

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any proposals to increase the resources available to the Northern Ireland tourist board for the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland; and whether he will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am pleased to announce that I have recently been able to allocate an extra £120,000 to the Northern Ireland tourist board. Together with the extra £800,000 allocated this financial year, the tourist board will have a budget of £4·72 million—almost £1 million above its original estimate. The board's proposals for increased marketing activity in the coming year are being considered.

Mr. Trimble: I welcome the additional resources for the tourist board. Will the Minister encourage the tourist board unambiguously to promote Northern Ireland and not to shackle itself to the Irish tourist board—Bord Failte—which has declined and obstructed the carrying of Northern Ireland material on its information to such an extent that recently, when the Northern Ireland tourist board tried to place advertisements in Bord Failte material, it cancelled the advertisements, thereby costing the Northern Irish tourist board over £150,000? In the light of that failure to co-operate and that obstructive attitude, will the Minister encourage the Northern Ireland tourist board unambiguously to promote Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: The Northern Ireland tourist board does unambiguously promote tourism in Northern Ireland and I think that it does so rather well. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that if tourists are enticed to the island of Ireland the chances are greater that they will come and enjoy the pleasures and beauties of the north. Therefore, there is a legitimate role of co-operation between the Northern Ireland tourist board and Bord Failte. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is an element of competition between the two boards and I have confidence that the Northern Ireland tourist board will continue to do as the hon. Gentleman asks and unambiguously promote tourism in the Province.

Mr. Couchman: Notwithstanding the opinion of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will my hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board to see what areas of co-operation can be established between the two boards?

Dr. Mawhinney: There are elements of co-operation and I am sure that that is something which the chairman of the tourist board keeps under review. What is unquestionably true is that Northern Ireland is one of the most beautiful parts, if the not the most beautiful part, of the United Kingdom and it would be a good start in promoting tourism if we could persuade every hon. Member to visit the Province as a tourist. I have no doubt


that, were they to do so, they would behave as other tourists do in Northern Ireland—they would want to come back and bring others with them.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I agree with the Minister that there is great potential for further development of tourism in the north of Ireland. Does he agree that it can be enhanced by closer co-operation with the Republic, but that it can be diminished by the recent terrorist activity in the centre of Belfast? That will undoubtedly diminish the tourist trade and affect inward investment into the Province which will have consequential effects on unemployment in the coming months.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's point will be echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Those activities damage the Province and its people and in that sense, as well as in others, they are to be condemned. However, the overwhelming majority of people who come to Northern Ireland as tourists say, almost in surprise and certainly with delight, that it was not as they expected it to be, that they are pleased they came and were not personally or not much personally affected by the security situation, that they enjoyed themselves and want to come back. That is the basis on which we must continue to build.

Terrorism

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the performance of the security forces in the fight against terrorism.

Dr. Mawhinney: The RUC, supported by the armed forces, continues to make progress towards the defeat of terrorism through the even-handed and energetic enforcement of the criminal law. Up to 31 October 1990, 322 people were charged with, and 348 convicted of, terrorist-related offences, including 65 and 28 for murder and attempted murder respectively. In the same period, the security forces recovered 197 weapons, almost 21,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 4,3001b of explosives.

Mr. Ross: Allthough regiments that have an Irish connection do not normally serve in Northern Ireland, is the Minister aware of the intense pride of the people of Northern Ireland that some of those regiments are engaged in a far larger fight against state terrorism in the middle east? We wish our young men and women and all the forces of the United Kingdom well.
Does the Minister understand that we also applaud the efforts and performance of individual members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, but are sadly aware that, despite the high quality of their performance, they have not yet managed to defeat the IRA? As the Minister said that their high performance is all that can be expected of them, where does he think that the failure to defeat the IRA lies, other than at political level? When does he expect his performance to match that of the security forces and lead to the defeat of those elements?

Dr. Mawhinney: The whole House will want to associate itself with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. On this day in particular, it is appropriate to recognise the skill, courage and professionalism of not only our security forces in the Gulf, whom we wish well, but those who serve in Northern Ireland, whom we also

wish well. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are committed to a rigorous security policy, which sits alongside political, economic and social policies and policies on cross-community contact and community relations, the sum total of which will have the effect that he and I desire.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In recognising that the House, and the people of Northern Ireland especially, owe a great debt to the security forces for their courage and resolution and for the great sacrifices that they have made in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister to explain why, when a deputation from my party visited the Chief Constable more than a month ago, he said that he was short of supplies and men? What supplies and men has the Chief Constable requested, and when will his requests go through the usual process to see whether they can be granted?

Dr. Mawhinney: The Police Authority received from the Chief Constable a bid for additional manpower for the RUC. After careful consideration, the authority agreed to support his bid and recently asked the Secretary of State to approve additional manpower for the RUC. The authority's proposals are being carefully considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern and anger in my constituency about the fatal shooting at Cullyhanna on the last Sunday of last year? Is he aware that tension is dangerously high as a result of that and other incidents? Will he explain why the Secretary of State refused to initiate a completely independent investigation into that incident and does he realise what damage has been done by that refusal?

Dr. Mawhinney: I recognise the substance of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question which he has reflected to me privately and on other occasions. I cannot accept, however, the latter part of his question. There have been conflicting reports of what happened. All the circumstances are being fully and independently investigated by senior detectives of the RUC. It would be wrong for me to comment on what happened. The police investigation will establish the facts impartially and objectively and a full report will be made to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that, if a report goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he decides not to prosecute, the fears of members of the community in Northern Ireland will still exist and will be enhanced when, eventually, many years later, the case goes to a coroner's court, where the people involved can make unsworn statements and cannot be examined on their recollections of what happened? Therefore, is not it necessary to have some form of independent perusal and arrangments to allay public anxiety about what happens on these occasions, and should not the basis of the DPP's decisions be made public, to gain confidence in the administration of the law and the actions of the security forces?

Dr. Mawhinney: The investigation by senior detectives of the RUC will be full and independent. The facts will be determined and a report will be made to the DPP, who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an independent officer and is not subject to the decisions of Ministers.

Security

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: Since I answered a similar question on 22 November last year, there have been six deaths arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland, including five civilians and one full-time RUC reserve officer. The police and Army continue to make significant finds of arms and ammunition and have in recent weeks made several arrests.

Mr. Brown: I understand that the Government are against linkage. Would not it be a good idea for the Minister to consider withdrawing British troops from Northern Ireland, particularly Scottish troops? Will he consider introducing an amnesty for all paramilitaries, whether Protestant or Catholic, to help the peace process?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has previously asked me a series of similar questions. I respect his motivation, but I profoundly disagree with those questions and I believe that the majority of hon. Members think likewise.

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the announcement of his engagement? I am glad that he has been able to carry out his courtship under the eye of the special branch. For how many men has the Chief Constable asked?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and for his solicitude about circumstances with which he is familiar—I do not, of course, in any way refer to his personal behaviour. As for the second half of his question, the Chief Constable's request to the police authority was for 441 men.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that, notwithstanding the great courage of our security forces in Northern Ireland, they cannot do the job unless they are properly resourced in terms of manpower and equipment, any more than the forces in the Gulf can? Does he accept that the closure of vehicle checkpoints during the hours of darkness in my constituency has done much to alienate people on both sides of the community who recognise the need to have those checkpoints? Will he consider placing the checkpoints right on the frontier so that the citizens of Northern Ireland are not closed out at night? If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that that is not possible for security reasons, why can he claim that there is adequate co-operation from the Irish Republic on security measures against terrorism?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman, who is always constructive in his contributions to debates on security policy, knows the background to the closure in December of the six permanent vehicle checkpoints at night in Fermanagh, on my authority and on advice from the Chief Constable and from the General Officer Commanding. When the announcement was made, I said that we recognised the inconvenience that was caused to the local community and that the matter would be reviewed to see what we could do in response. That review is continuing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having again, in his final observation, contributed to the process.

Mr. McNamara: Will the review consider the whole policy on whether there should be permanent vehicle checkpoints? There is considerable feeling that permanent vehicle checkpoints make readily accessible targets for terrorists and that it is unfair to put our men at risk in that way when it might be more advantageous to have the surprise of unusual vehicle checkpoints, although we accept that PVCPs may always be necessary for heavy traffic in certain places.

Mr. Brooke: It goes without saying, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, that all aspects of security policy in Northern Ireland will be kept under constant review. The policy to which he referred has now existed for a decade. In the analysis of the policy, one should draw attention to the considerable diminution of fear in the community immediately adjacent to the checkpoints as a result of the policy. However, I repeat that the policy itself is kept under constant review.

Exports (United States)

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the value of exports of manufactured goods from Northern Ireland to the United States in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The value of manufactured goods exported to the United States through Northern Ireland in 1989 was £62·3 million. However, this is likely to be a significant underestimate as it does not take account of Northern Irish goods exported through ports in Great Britain.

Mr. Colvin: May I place on record the House's congratulations to my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, especially as, while answering his first question, he is wearing another, absent Minister's hat? Is my hon. Friend aware that the lion's share of exports to the United States is by Short Brothers which, since being taken over by Bombadier, has immensely improved its performance, its productivity and its profitability? Does he acknowledge that the strength of the pound against the dollar, especially as aviation products are priced in dollars, is making it increasingly difficult for Short Brothers to bid successfully for new contracts? What can my hon. Friend do about that?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, is in the United States at the moment trying to increase exports to that country on behalf of Northern Ireland. Shorts makes sales and purchases in dollars. As a privately owned business, its foreign exchange management is a matter for its directors. Shorts has not sought any assistance from the Government for foreign exchange exposures. I take this opportunity to congratulate Shorts on its major contribution to the economy of Northern Ireland. It is a significant exporter; it has achieved well over £600 million in overseas sales in the past five years, which represents 60 per cent. of its total sales turnover.

Mr. Mallon: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to Northern Ireland and to say that nobody could be more welcome than he is? Will he convey to the Secretary of State our congratulations on his engagement? We shall ensure together that we get him to the church on time.
Will the Minister ensure that similar effort and investment is put into attracting inward investment from the United States, as has happened in the recent past? I hope that we shall all recognise the efforts made by the Minister with responsibility for commerce who, at present, is in the United States trying to obtain business for Northern Ireland. His efforts in that regard should be recorded in the House.

Mr. Hanley: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I wholly agree that inward investment is extremely important in reducing unemployment and in helping the healthy condition of the Northern Ireland economy. Clearly, activities such as those that I have seen at first hand in the past two weeks can do nothing to help build the Northern Ireland economy or to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Bellingham: I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. He has ideal qualifications: he has a great sense of humour and he is also a very good mimic.
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major achievements on the economic front over the past few months has been the growth in self-employment and in small businesses? What percentage of the work force is now employed in that sector? Will my hon. Friend also do everything possible to encourage the excellent work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit over the next few months?

Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend also for his kind comments. I could not be more willing to serve in Northern Ireland, which is a country full of people of very good humour, contrary to certain opinions. I am enjoying myself there tremendously.
Just over 100,000 people are employed in manufacturing industry at the moment. I shall write to my hon. Friend with the precise figure for which he asked me.

Irish Republic

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has had with the Irish Government about the implications for Ireland of its relations with Europe post-1992 and following the construction of the channel tunnel.

Mr. Brooke: The implications for the Government of the Republic of Ireland of their relations with Europe after 1992 are a matter for them. We and the Irish Government have regular contacts about matters of mutual interest arising from progress towards the single European market in 1992.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Single European Act and the construction of the channel tunnel pose challenges not only to the island of Ireland, north and south, but to us, in terms of our relations with both the Irish Government and Northern Ireland? They provide an opportunity for enhanced co-operation between north and south and between the

British and the Irish. Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that, unless we improve our infrastructure—especially by the further electrification of railway lines and the improvement of roads—it will not be possible for the island of Ireland to be anything other than a peripheral, rather than a core, part of Europe?

Mr. Brooke: Our practical co-operation on internal market issues is already good. We are in close touch with the Irish Government about Interreg, a Commission initiative to encourage co-operation in border areas. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about infrastructure. On both sides of the water, the Government are addressing that—in terms of access to the ports in Northern Ireland, in terms of connections and communications with the south and also in terms of road and rail developments on this side of the water.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Given the importance of the channel tunnel to the whole of the United Kingdom, what steps has the Secretary of State taken to improve the direct routes between Northern Ireland and the channel tunnel, using the shortest sea route between Lame and Stranraer, in the south-west of Scotland?

Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. He will know that work is under way on the 15 km of the A8 on the way to Lame to provide a dual carriageway instead of a single carriageway. Matters concerning the road between Stranraer and the M6 are for the Scottish Development Department, but £45 million has been spent on continuing stretches and the question of a bypass round Dumfries is currently being addressed. There is no doubt at all about the importance that the Government attach to the question that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that, once the channel tunnel is completed, Ireland, north and south, will be the only part of the single market that does not have a land link with the rest of the Community? In effect, it will be the offshore island of the new Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that will intensify the common economic interests of both parts of the island and should therefore lead to intensified co-operation between both Governments on those interests?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is clearly right about large islands, although the Greek islands would be a close analogy. I have already agreed that practical co-operation in the economic sphere is going forward well. Whether that will have a read-across into the political sphere only time can tell. There is not an automatic read-across. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to listen to Northern Ireland questions.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Secretary of State explore with the Dublin Government and other member countries of the EEC the possibility of building a tunnel for the short route between Scotland and Northern Ireland? Such a tunnel would be beneficial to not only Northern Ireland but the Irish Republic.

Mr. Brooke: I am reasonably confident about the current arrangements, but I am always prepared to include on my agenda anything that the hon. Gentleman puts to me, however hypothetical.

Education Order

Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the workings of the Northern Ireland Education Order.

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stott: The Minister of State will be aware that the Northern Ireland Education Order was not greeted with universal acclamation in the House or, indeed, in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister sure that he has convinced the teaching profession, the area education boards and, moreover, parents in Northern Ireland that the provisions contained in the order are in the best interests of educating the children of Northern Ireland in Northern Irish schools?

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes. The only exceptions that I might be tempted to make are the leaders of education unions. I have gone some way in convincing them that it is a positive development.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister assure the House that his nominated bodies are doing everything possible to ensure that schools in Northern Ireland are prepared for curriculum change? Will schools and colleges which still need capital expenditure to provide science and technology accommodation receive funds to finance it?

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes. First, a considerable programme of in-service training for teachers started in 1989–90 and will continue through next year. There will be days of exceptional school closures and extra resources will be made available to the education and library boards. On the capital aspects of education reform, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have made available an extra £135 million over and above already record levels of expenditure on education and that a sizeable proportion of that sum is being devoted, over a period, to precisely that which he seeks. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again ask the House to listen to Northern Ireland questions. They are a rare opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to put their questions to Ministers.

Unemployment

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest level of unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hanley: At 13 December 1990—the latest date for which figures are available—there were 95,570 unemployed claimants in the Province, representing 13·7 per cent. of the work force.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the scandalously high rate of unemployment is a reflection of the failure of the enterprise culture and the imposition of scandalously high interest rates, which, as the Minister knows, are deliberately designed to produce unemployment? Does he recognise that low unemployment is an

important component in resolving the conflict in Northern Ireland? What policies does he intend to introduce to bring about a reduction in unemployment?

Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree that a reduction in unemployment is important for bringing greater peace to the community of Northern Ireland. However, the figure of 95,570 which I just announced should be seen in comparison with the peak headline total of 135,000 as recently as September 1986.

Mr. Stevens: In congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Front Bench, may I ask him what the Government are doing to reduce unemployment in the Province?

Mr. Hanley: The Government are committed to continuing the fight against unemployment and have recently published their new economic development strategy for Northern Ireland called "Competing in the 1990s—The Key to Growth". The overall aim is to remove the obstacles that prevent industry growing and to improve the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy which will lead to stable long-term jobs.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of my colleagues I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does he think that the upturn in unemployment has been caused most by the high inflation rate, high interest rates, the wrong time and level of entry into the ERM or Sinn Fein's economic campaign against Northern Ireland, through its armed wing, in blowing people out of work at the same time as screaming for more jobs?

Mr. Hanley: The level of unemployment has been disappointing over the last two months, but I should add that the rise has not been as serious in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain where it has been faster. Whatever the reasons, we will be trying to reduce unemployment and to increase employment for the sake of all people in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that our troops know that they have the overwhelming support of the House not only in liberating Kuwait but in realising the promise of a newly effective United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that his views will be echoed throughout the House. I hope that that strong support will be sustained within and beyond the House in the difficult weeks ahead.

Mr. Kinnock: May I take this opportunity of supporting the feeling expressed by the Prime Minister


earlier today that the current conflict was not wanted by those allied against Iraq and is, therefore, regretted? For the sake of our forces and their families, and for the sake of innocent civilians in Kuwait and in Iraq, people everywhere will hope that success in fulfilling the purposes of the United Nations is achieved as speedily as possible. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that Saddam Hussein can quickly prevent further death and destruction by fully and immediately complying with the United Nations resolutions, by laying down all Iraqi arms and by respecting international law?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for the way in which he expressed his view. I hope that at an early stage Saddam Hussein will do what he should have done a long time ago—make it clear that he is prepared to leave Kuwait fully, wholly and unconditionally and spare the world the conflict that is at present going on.

Mr. Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the assessment by General Colin Powell of the United States joint chiefs of staff that 80 per cent. of the sorties against Iraq have been effective. Is not that a remarkable achievement and a great credit to the allied forces? Does not the pinpoint bombing that we have seen on the news illustrate that there will not be the civilian casualties in Iraq which some had feared? That is important, because our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our problem is not with the people of Iraq but with the dictator of Iraq who created the invasion of Kuwait. My hon. Friend is entirely right. I echo what he said about the precision bombing that we have seen thus far. I might add that much of that precision bombing is carried out at low level precisely to avoid civilian casualties, sometimes at risk to our pilots. I think that their bravery deserves acknowledgement.

Mr. Ashdown: We all heard the news of last night's action with deep regret that this war had to be fought. Does the Prime Minister realise that in this House, and I believe in the nation, there is no mood of jingoism for war but a deep determination to see through a job that must be done, to support our forces and to back the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We entered this enterprise with reluctance, but we shall pursue it with persistence until the end.

Mr. Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend accept my warm congratulations on the way in which he made his statement this morning and particularly on the way in which he answered the questions put to him by the press? Does he agree with the commentator on Radio 4 this morning who urged that we should not attempt through the many armchair generals who will commentate on this war to second-guess what the military are doing in Iraq?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is already clear from what we have seen today that the degree of care in the planning by the allied high command has been very successful. I believe that the conduct of those military operations is in very satisfactory military hands.

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clelland: Does the Prime Minister recall that many of our hostages, who have now returned from Iraq, spoke of the friendliness and helpfulness of the ordinary Iraqi citizens during their period of entrapment? Will he confirm that this war is against Saddam Hussein and his hencemen, not against ordinary families in Iraq? Does he further agree that ordinary Iraqi nationals, living in this country, many of whom are refugees from the oppression of Saddam Hussein, should not be harassed or held accountable for the actions of the dictator?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is entirely true that there are a large number of Iraqi citizens in the United Kingdom who are here precisely because they have been persecuted by Saddam Hussein. I believe that their refuge here will be appreciated and understood by the British people.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have no quarrel whatsoever with ordinary Iraqi people. As I said a moment ago, it is the dictatorship of Iraq which we are opposing.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since President Bush this morning said that one of his war aims was to destroy the existing chemical and potential atomic war-making capacity of Iraq, will my right hon. Friend associate the United Kingdom with that war aim? Will he also confirm that, once those installations are destroyed, no British or European company will, in future, assist in their being replaced?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend may know, those installations have been attacked, but thus far we are not entirely sure with what success. I hope that that will become apparent later. Subsequently, I certainly hope that firms will take great care in any dealings they may have with those who may recreate that sort of facility.

General Colin Powell

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has had a meeting with General Colin Powell of the United States joint chiefs of staff; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I met the chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff on 4 December. British commanders, of course, have been in regular touch with General Powell.

Mr. Dalyell: If General Powell were to be instructed either to accept or to offer a call for a cease fire, would we have to wait until Kuwait was occupied by coalition forces? In the light of my letter of yesterday to him, could the Prime Minister clarify the differences between himself on the one hand and Secretary Cheney and General Powell on the other on the use and legal aspects of nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, the conflict can cease when it becomes clear beyond doubt that the Iraqis are moving out of Kuwait and we are certain that that is the case. That has been and will continue to be the position.
On the use of nuclear weapons, I think that I made it clear in the debate the other day that we did not envisage the use of nuclear weapons. To the best of our knowledge Iraq does not have a nuclear capacity. Under the non-proliferation treaty, which has been signed by the United States and ourselves, we would not therefore use them.

Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the vital ingredients in the success of the military operation so far was General Powell's request, courageously supported on 9 November by President Bush and the British Cabinet, to double the number of troops and aircraft deployed to their present high levels? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate all those responsible on both sides of the Atlantic, from commanders to backroom boys, on this remarkable feat of military logistics and preparedness?

The Prime Minister: I would certainly be most happy to do that. When I was able to visit Dhahran and some of the military establishments a week or so ago, it was astonishing to see the way in which the sheer logistics of obtaining such a dramatic armada of weaponry, in terms of both land and air forces, had been achieved. It has been a remarkable logistical operation.

Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the significant achievements of General Powell has been to ensure that this is not just an American dispute with the Iraqi Government—he has also involved the Arab Governments? Should we not all like to pay tribute to the Saudi Arabian Government and the Kuwait Government in exile for agreeing to their aircraft flying into Iraq, in marked distinction to the French?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: I certainly believe that it is entirely welcome that there has been a multinational effort in terms of today's attack on Iraq. My understanding is that it was a four-nation attack in the first wave. But, as the right hon. Gentleman may not yet have heard, France joined in the attack at a later stage. I understand that some of her aircraft have suffered damage.

Engagements

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sayeed: Although it is difficult to consider any matter other than the middle east today, will my right hon. Friend bend his mind to the conventional forces in Europe treaty that, just two months ago, seemed to offer so much hope for peace in the world? As all 22 signatories are required to ratify that treaty, does my right hon. Friend believe that that will happen, after the brutal repression in Latvia and Lithuania and the undermining of the treaty's spirit by some elements in the Soviet military?

The Prime Minister: I very much hope that that treaty will be signed. Clearly, there are a number of serious problems that need to be resolved, particularly the Soviet Union's transfer of a large number of tanks from the army to the naval coastal command with the intention of

bypassing the treaty—which has the absurd effect of ensuring that the Soviet navy has more tanks than the British Army.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Is not it the case that Saddam Hussein must be held responsible not only for the present war and tragedy, but for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who lost their lives during a totally useless, futile war against Iran? Who is this criminal dictator to lecture us about the loss of innocent lives?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept the praise of Conservative Members for the way in which he has handled the situation so far? Will he also accept that considerable congratulations should be given to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the SDP both of whom have unified behind the Government? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that those initials are very difficult to remember.
I have been very pleased and heartened—but more importantly, our troops will have been pleased and heartened—to see the uniformity of support given to them by the House.

Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Following the decision of the Soviet Union earlier today to reject the call of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe for an international conference on the position in the Baltic, the first death in Latvia yesterday, the appearance of militia men with their black berets and President Gorbachev's attempt to extinguish a free press in the Soviet Union, does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to be even handed in our treatment of human rights abuses and the right of self-determination, it is now time to convene a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the position in the Baltic states? Does he agree with Boris Yeltsin who said that we are at the beginning of a mighty offensive against democracy?

The Prime Minister: As I made clear to the House in Question Time earlier this week, I deeply deplore the actions in Vilnius and I very much regret the reports that a Latvian civilian has been killed by Soviet security guards. We have made our views crystal clear to the Soviet Union. The Soviets can be in no doubt about the way in which we view that and we have also made it clear that the continued health of the European Community will depend on the Soviet Union pursuing a path of reform, not of repression.

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Couchman: The thoughts and prayers of many of my constituents will be with the sappers from Medway towns serving with our troops in the Gulf. Will my right hon. Friend seek to reassure them in their anxiety that the courage and superb professionalism of all our troops will contribute to a swift and satisfactory outcome to this conflict, which many of us had hoped would never happen?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that those qualities will contribute to a successful outcome. However, we should be under no illusions about the scale and potential might of the Iraqi forces and, while I am confident about the success, I cannot yet be confident about the speed of that success, and I think that we should prepare ourselves for that fact.

The Gulf

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the start of hostilities in the Gulf in the small hours of this morning.
Aircraft of the multinational force began attacks on military targets in Iraq from around midnight Greenwich mean time. Several hundred aircraft were involved in the action, including a substantial number of RAF aircraft. The action was taken under the authority of United Nations Security Council resolution 678 which authorises use of all necessary means, including force, after 15 January to bring about Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait.
The action was taken after extensive consultation with the principal Governments represented in the multinational force and following direct discussions between President Bush and myself over a period of weeks. It was taken only after exhaustive diplomatic efforts through the UN, the European Community, Arab Governments and others to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw peacefully.
The action is continuing. Attacks have been directed at Iraq's military capability, in particular airfields, aircraft, missile sites, nuclear and chemical facilities and other military targets. Reports so far received suggest that they have been successful. Allied aircraft losses have been low. I regret to inform the House that one RAF Tornado from later raids is reported missing.
The instructions issued to our pilots and those of other forces are to avoid causing civilian casualties so far as possible.
Our aims are clear and limited. They are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions: to get Iraq out of Kuwait—all of Kuwait; to restore the legitimate Government; to re-establish peace and security in the area; and to uphold the authority of the United Nations.
As I explained in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, it is only with the greatest reluctance that we have come to the point of using force as authorised by the Security Council. We did so only after all peaceful means had failed and Saddam Hussein's intransigence left us no other course. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We hope very much for a speedy end to hostilities. That will come about when Saddam Hussein withdraws totally and unconditionally from Kuwait. Our military action will continue until he comes to his senses and does so.
Most of all, our thoughts go to the men and women of our forces and their families who wait anxiously at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They have our wholehearted support and our prayers for a safe return home.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement.
As the House and the country consider the current conditions in the Gulf region, does the Prime Minister agree that it is relevant and fair to remind ourselves that the first act of warfare which caused the Gulf crisis was taken by Saddam Hussein on 2 August when he invaded Kuwait?
For the reasons that I gave on Tuesday, I had hoped that the combined pressures of blockade, sanctions and military readiness could be employed longer to have maximum effect.
Our forces naturally have our complete support and I join the Prime Minister in his thoughts for the families of the men and women facing danger in the Gulf and in his desire that their loved ones come safe home.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the war aims of the allied forces in the Gulf are related directly to achieving the fulfilment of the United Nations purposes of upholding and implementing resolution 660 and of restoring international peace and security in the area? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the forces pursuing those purposes of the United Nations are guided by the dual aims of maximising the disabling of Iraqi military strength while minimising any harm to civilians?
I recognise that the conflict is but hours old, but will the Prime Minister, even at this stage, reaffirm that, after the conclusion of the conflict, prominence must be given to proceeding as quickly as possible to international activities through the United Nations to resolve the wider problems of justice, peace and stability throughout the region?
I welcome the fact that the Government are making provision for an early debate. Once again, just in the act of doing that we are demonstrating the superiority of democracy over any form of dictatorship.

The Prime Minister: I share the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first point. It was the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August which commenced the hostilities. As the House knows, that was conducted without cause and, after the invasion had taken place, repression was conducted without mercy. The aggression was Saddam Hussein's, not ours.
I share the complete support for the forces that the right hon. Gentleman expressed. I can confirm that our aims in the conflict are to uphold the United Nations resolutions—those and no others are the aims for which the British and other forces are fighting in the Gulf.
I also confirm that the instructions that have been given to all the allied pilots are to minimise civilian casualties wherever that is possible, and the targets that they have been instructed to attack are, without exception, military targets or targets of strategic importance.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked for our aims and policy at the conclusion of the conflict. I confirm that we will wish to return, as we have in the past, to the question of a peace conference to deal with the wider problems of Arab-Israel.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Prime Minister agree that in the days and weeks ahead, when internal communications in Iraq are likely to be seriously impaired, the work of the BBC's world service is likely to achieve unparalleled importance? Will he check today to ensure that that service is given every opportunity to speak the truth to the people of Iraq?

The Prime Minister: That action is in hand.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I say how reassuring it was that the Prime Minister laid out so clearly in his statement the limited aims of the operation?
We cannot, of course, rejoice in any loss of life on whatever side, but will the Prime Minister pass on our congratulations and admiration to our forces for their professionalism, skill and courage? The operations so far have clearly been a considerable success, but does the


Prime Minister agree that we must not underestimate the scale of the task that has still to be carried out or the dangers that are still to be confronted?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I share his views without reservation. Iraq has a substantial number of men under arms. They have sophisticated weapons and, in many cases, they have considerable hardened military experience. There is a great deal yet to be done before the matter is resolved.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister take it from me that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland are with him in the heavy burden that he is carrying at this particular time? Is he aware that many hundreds of Ulstermen are out in the Gulf, side by side with all the service men from the rest of the United Kingdom who are standing shoulder to shoulder to defeat the aggressor? When the right hon. Gentleman sees Her Majesty the Queen this afternoon, will he invite her to call for a national day of prayer, that we might pray that the war will be over speedily and that Kuwait will be liberated?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the young men from Northern Ireland, the vast majority of whom are, I believe, serving with 7 Brigade, and have done so for some time with distinction. I shall be delighted to pass on the hon. Gentleman's kind words to their commanding officer. I shall certainly bear in mind his comments about my meeting with Her Majesty the Queen later today.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that he enjoys the total support of Unionist party Members on these Benches today for the action that has, unfortunately, had to be taken in the Gulf? Is he further aware that he also enjoys the support of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, who are well aware that the action that we have been compelled to take in the Gulf is the lesser of the two evils that confronted us in that part of the world? Is the Prime Minister aware that we admire his statement today, because it said remarkably little, and will he follow a similar course of action when making further statements over the period of the hostilities, since least said is soonest mended, and the "need to know" should be paramount in his mind when any statement is being prepared?

The Prime Minister: In all that I say, I shall bear in mind first and foremost the need to guard the security and interests of our troops in the Gulf. That has been, and will continue to be, uppermost in my mind. As to the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, he and his constituents in Northern Ireland understand the impact of terrorism better than most, and it is against a form of terrorism that our troops are fighting in the Gulf.

Mr. Michael Grylls: As it is likely that some British service men will be taken prisoner during the hostilities, will my right hon. Friend make it clear on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we expect any such prisoners to be treated according to international convention—because, in view of the Iraqi regime's appalling record of treating its people, we may feel some nervousness about that. Will my right hon. Friend make it

clear that, if the Iraqis do not treat prisoners according to international convention, their leaders will be held responsible after the hostilities?

The Prime Minister: We certainly expect any of our troops who are captured to be treated in the manner that prisoners of war should normally be treated. We made that absolutely clear to Iraq and we also held discussions with the International Red Cross about that matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Prime Minister referred to aims and said that there would be an end to military operations when Saddam Hussein withdraws from Northern Ireland—[Laughter.]

Mr. Tony Banks: And so he should.

Mr. Rees: Whatever you say, Mr. Speaker, say nothing. I meant to say, when Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait. Would the same apply if Saddam Hussein is driven out of Kuwait?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows precisely what are our aims under the Security Council resolutions. They are to ensure that Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait and returns to Iraq, and that a legitimate Government are returned to Kuwait. I assume that we shall conclude the existing conflict when that happens.

Mr. Keith Speed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that events in the Gulf and, alas, in the Soviet Union, mean that the prospects of an early and substantial peace dividend is now remote?

The Prime Minister: We very much regret what is happening in the Soviet Union and we shall have to continue examining the situation there to see what impact it has on our forces. Thus far, we have very little real information about what is happening in the Baltic states. We are seeking to obtain more, but without that information, it is difficult to make a proper judgment.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Despite the Prime Minister's assertion that he does not believe that Iraq has a nuclear capability and despite the assumption made by some of us yesterday that that was so, there are persistent press reports today that Iraq does have a nuclear capacity. It would obviously be disastrous if nuclear weapons were to be used in the middle east, so will the Prime Minister state categorically that under no circumstances would we use nuclear weapons—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—first, but that we will use every means in our power to deter the Iraqis from using such weapons, including the threat of retaliation?

The Prime Minister: As to whether Iraq has nuclear capacity, it is certainly the case that it is seeking to attain nuclear capacity. It is our information that it does not yet have nuclear capacity and, on that basis, the remarks that I made earlier about the non-proliferation treaty stand.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a most wise and unequivocal message of full support for our troops? Is he further aware that your Chaplain, Mr. Speaker, has arranged for a daily service of intercession at 1 o'clock in St. Margaret's while the crisis continues?

The Prime Minister: I certainly was aware of the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury and I welcome them unreservedly. Of course, as the House knows, the Archbishop has considerable military experience himself, being a holder of the military cross.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Prime Minister tell us, as fully and as honestly as he can, what he knows about the level of Iraqi casualties and will he promise us that, throughout this war, we shall be told honestly about the suffering and killing of Iraqi people?

The Prime Minister: I must repeat what I said earlier. The instructions that have been given to our pilots are to minimise casualties and all the preliminary evidence is that that is the case. I have no clear evidence yet, nor will I be able to get it for some time, as to the level of casualties in Iraq, but to the extent that there may be any, either now or later, there can be no doubt in the hon. Lady's mind, in mine or in anybody else's, where the responsibility for that must lie.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Prime Minister congratulate our pilots on the enormously skilled implementation of their training in the raid last night? Will he remind those of our citizens who complain about the intrusion of forces training in their daily lives in times of peace that it is this training which gives our forces their leading edge and enables them to go in and win?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. It is that low flying, which is often such a frustration to people in this country, which is enabling us to minimise civilian casualties in Iraq at present.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, as someone who has regularly questioned low-flying activities in the Lake District, as have my constituents, ask the Prime Minister to relay to our pilots in the Gulf that they have the support, the hearts and the minds of people throughout the county of Cumbria, and we salute their courage and skill at this important time?

The Prime Minister: I will do so with great pleasure.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to welcome not only the courage displayed by the many people to whom he has already referred, but the exceptional courage which has been shown during the first few hours of this conflict by newsmen in places such as Baghdad and other parts of the middle east and by the many foreign citizens and British workers—many of whom are British Aerospace workers—who have remained in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia to provide the support facilities so badly needed by many different troops?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend makes his own point most eloquently and I agree with it.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Prime Minister aware that at a news conference this morning a member of the democratic Iraqi opposition, in emotional tones, talked about the extra suffering that his people would now have to go through, and he blamed the United States for inflicting that suffering—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Mahon: He also told the news conference how distressed he was that there was so little feeling for the Iraqi people, who have lived under Saddam Hussein's cruelty for many years, and that the west had helped in that cruelty by allowing Saddam Hussein to buy his weaponry and to have export credits? Will the Prime Minister please—I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, (Ms. Short) said —tell the House honestly of all the civilian casualties as they happen?

The Prime Minister: I have already responded with all the information that I have about civilian casualties. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that. As for the gentleman she mentioned, I can only say that that member of the Iraqi opposition might dwell on the matter of those other members of the Iraqi opposition who have been murdered by Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend seen press reports that suggest that the BBC may have given its correspondents instructions to refer not to "our troops" but merely to "British troops", apparently in the interests of impartiality? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if those reports are true, it is deeply depressing that—even in a conflict of this sort—the BBC should be unable to distinguish between good and evil?

The Prime Minister: I believe that what the BBC is doing, in what has already been some remarkable reporting, is trying to keep a proper balance in that reporting—precisely because so much of the world listens to the BBC and because it is important to this country that they continue to do so and to believe what they hear.

Dr. John Gilbert: Was there anything encouraging in the reply that the Iraqi Government made to the Prime Minister's representations about the treatment of any prisoners of war who might fall into their hands?

The Prime Minister: I regret to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have received no positive response.

Mr. Paul Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our forces have no ambition whatever to topple Saddam Hussein from his position of power in Iraq and that the aim of the conflict is simply to remove his forces from Kuwait?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know the terms of the United Nations resolutions; I set them out earlier. Those are our aims.

Mr. Peter Shore: While our armed forces can be confident that they are fighting in a just and, indeed, noble cause—and while they will enjoy the overwhelming support of the British people—can the Prime Minister tell us what is being done to pierce the walls of silence that separate the Iraqi people from the truth, not only about their position but about the hideous role to which Saddam Hussein has brought them?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. This is a just cause and I think that that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of people throughout the world.
We have been trying to penetrate the fog of misunderstanding that exists in Iraq over a period of months, not least by means of broadcasts but also in other


fashions. In a society dominated as Iraq has been for so long, it is terribly difficult to get that message through; I hope, however, that it will be understood very shortly and that the people of Iraq will realise that the way in which they have been led and mistreated by their own dictator in recent years is wholly unacceptable. Let us pray that he is soon gone.

Mr. Roger Gale: Let me join my right hon. Friend in congratulating those responsible for the extremely courageous reporting that is coming out of Baghdad in particular. It is of great interest and comfort to the families of our troops out there.
As well as pledging total backing for our troops in the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend confirm that total support will be given, not only during but after the conflict, to the wives, children and families of our service men out there?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that firm assurance.

Mr. James Lamond: May I ask the Prime Minister not to allow the fact that the first action of a United Nations operating with the new, full-hearted support that it has found has ended in this dreadful tragedy of war to dissuade him from giving equally strong and full-hearted support to the UN's other proposals to deal with difficulties not only in the Gulf area but elsewhere in the middle east and in the world? Can we count on that?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in my speech the other day, many people throughout the world will have been very pleased about the growing authority of the United Nations over recent years. That certainly embraces my view. As for Arab-Israel, I made it clear earlier that we would continue to pursue a peace conference once the present conflict was ended.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the events of the past 24 hours and the past five and a half months, we should be grateful for the strength and determination of the United States in the cause of freedom?

The Prime Minister: I very strongly agree with my hon. Friend's view. We have 35,000 troops and an enormous amount of aircraft and armour there, but the United States has a far greater amount and is paying a substantial price to ensure freedom in Kuwait.

Mr. Jim Sillars: May I refer the Prime Minister to the penultimate paragraph of his statement, in which he said that military action will continue until Saddam Hussein withdraws unconditionally from Kuwait? Given that we are now at war and that casualties and disruptions are part and parcel of that, is he really saying that, if Iraq announced at any time its willingness to accept and implement the United Nations resolutions, but rquired a short time to gather people together to leave peacefully, that would not be acceptable?

The Prime Minister: I did not say that that would not be acceptable. I have made it clear that the war cannot end until we know that Saddam Hussein is out of Kuwait or it is clear beyond doubt that he is going to get out of Kuwait. We need to know exactly what he means if such an offer is made, but we would wish to examine it most carefully.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in answer to those of our constituents whose sincere and genuine views lead them towards pacifism or a belief that the continuation of sanctions would be the best way to proceed, it is necessary to say simply that sometimes a better world cannot be hoped for or prayed for but has to be fought for?

The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. Many people, for religious and other reasons, have a genuine and mortal hatred of war. I understand that—none of us likes it. For some people, it is a hatred that they are unable to overcome. We must continue to explain to them, to borrow the words of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that this is a just war by any count.

Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Prime Minister notice that, in the course of the night, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said that he had not been told that the attack was about to take place? As this is supposed to be a United Nations operation, can the Prime Minister tell the House what role he sees for the Security Council in monitoring the operation? Everybody knows that, when the bloodshed ends, there will be a peace conference that will have to meet all the problems.
On the question of casualties, the right hon. Gentleman must have stayed up through the night watching the bombing of Baghdad as the greatest aerial bombardment in the history of air warfare was launched, which we watched in person on our televisions. Did he not feel that, when the commentator said that it was like a firework display on 4 July while human beings were being killed by that bombardment, such a comment ran contrary to the spirit of what the Prime Minister said about minimising the casualties on both sides?

The Prime Minister: The attacks and military action that the right hon. Gentleman saw through the night were on military establishments for a military purpose to achieve the liberation of Kuwait. It operated under the authority of the United Nations, freely given by the United Nations, and there was no specific need to refer back to the Secretary-General.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the way in which he has conducted himself and for his dignity and restraint, which reflect well on this country? Does he share my concern that most of the news coming out of the Gulf is from nearly 400 United States correspondents, while the reports from British correspondents, including the BBC, are coming from only a handful who are having to pool their reports? We need British news about British service men and women, from British correspondents. Will the Prime Minister please see what can be done about that?

The Prime Minister: We went to some trouble to ensure that there were appropriate visas so that British reporters were able to be in the Gulf area during this conflict. I must tell the House that we are concerned also about the safety of British correspondents there and we have made it perfectly clear that we do not expect them to stay in areas of great danger to themselves.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Prime Minister recognise that, as well as achieving the objective of the United Nations of freeing Kuwait, it is important to


preserve political stability in the area and the advance to freedom in other countries? Will he be ever mindful of the effect of an extended conflict on the stability of countries such as Jordan and other Arab countries? Will he undertake to work for a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible moment and for the minimisation of casualties?

The Prime Minister: There is no way in which, at the conclusion of the conflict, the status quo ante will immediately reappear. One of the matters that I was able to discuss in my recent visit to the Gulf was precisely what might happen at the end of the conflict. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are already thinking, consulting and liaising with our allies about a proper security structure to ensure that this dreadful conflict does not recur.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House's admiration of the courage and skill of our pilots knows no bounds and that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of crewmen who are missing and of those who will not return from this conflict?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He expresses sentiments which the whole House will share.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the Prime Minister has reminded us several times that this war is being pursued in the light of United Nations resolutions, when can we expect some briefings and statements from the United Nations rather than from General Powell and President Bush? Does he intend to ask for the reconvening of the Security Council and the Assembly so that there can be broader discussion of what is going on in the Gulf?

The Prime Minister: There is no need to reconvene the United Nations Security Council. The resolutions and the authority are clear. The United Nations is not directly involved in the conflict; its member states are, but under the authority of the United Nations.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the ability of our forces in the Gulf to perform the tasks asked of them depends not only on their courage but on the quality of the equipment with which they are supplied? Will he confirm that the British defence industry has performed unstintingly all the tasks that have been asked of it, and more, in these difficult times? Will he ensure that in future our troops will never be asked to undertake tasks for which they are not supplied with the best equipment available? Is that the policy of his Government?

The Prime Minister: Our troops most certainly have the best equipment available. My hon. Friend would be pleased to know precisely what the troops think about the excellent way in which the Challenger tank is performing in the desert. They have excellent equipment and that equipment is in excellent hands with our troops in the Gulf.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On this more sombre day, when the Prime Minister has expressed his reluctance to have taken military action and his willingness to consider the possibility of Iraq deciding to withdraw from Kuwait, does he accept that it is necessary to have absolute clarity on the war aims of the United Nations

coalition? Will he reflect on his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), in which he said that he assumed that, if the forces physically went into Kuwait, they would stop at the border? If we are to look for Saddam Hussein or for those of influence in Iraq who may be more peacefully minded and prepared to accept an end to the conflict by withdrawing from Kuwait, will he make it clear that it is not part of the war aims of the coalition to invade and occupy Iraq?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that that is not our aim. Our aim is to enforce the United Nations resolutions. That, and only that, is the aim for which the allied troops are in the Gulf.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept my commendation to the decision takers of the United Nations force for having taken advantage of the great benefits of the principle of surprise and attacked straight away, which will save the lives of friend and foe alike by bringing this conflict to an earlier conclusion than would otherwise be the case?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a distinguished war record and a distinguished military record. His commendation will mean more to the commanders than mine, and I will pass it on.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Prime Minister recognise that those of us who oppose going to war at this stage, who are not pacifists but who are simply saying, once again, that it is wrong to go to war until all approaches have been exhausted, are not showing any lack of support for our troops? Of course we want them to have the medical and food supplies that they require. That is not an issue in this conflict.
Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the best thing that we can do for our troops is to bring a speedy end to the conflict—not just to defeat Saddam Hussein in Kuwait but to bring about peace and justice in the middle east? I am extremely disappointed that the Prime Minister's war aims seem to be so limited. We do not think that there will be a satisfactory end to the conflict if it merely ends in the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If this is a democracy, if this is part of what we are talking about, if other opinions are to be heard—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course this is a democracy, but the hon. Lady must take account of the other Opposition Members who wish to participate.

Mrs. Fyfe: I just want to finish on this point. Is Monday's debate to be yet another Adjournment debate or will the Government make a clear statement of the position?

The Prime Minister: The latter point will be discussed between the usual channels in the usual way and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a statement in due course. All of us are seeking peace and justice in the middle east, in Kuwait and beyond, but I fear that, for Iraq and Kuwait, peace and justice require the action that we are taking and the defeat of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the maintenance of the confidence and morale of our armed forces in the middle east crucially depends on this country's calm, courageous, steadfast leadership, all characteristics which he has exemplified perfectly during the past few days and, indeed, since he took office? Will my right hon. Friend explain to Saddam Hussein that the only way in which a ceasefire can take place is if he withdraws from Kuwait?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He sets out the absolute precondition for a settlement and I agree with him.

Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Prime Minister accept my regard for the professionalism, training and expertise of all our forces, whom I had the opportunity to meet in the Gulf just before Christmas? They have now been committed to action and I hope that they will come through safely. I shall understand if the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty in answering my next question: what is the current attitude of Jordan and Iran to what is happening?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly pass the first half of the hon. Gentleman's remarks on to the commander in the middle east. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not respond directly to his second question.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the action of the Governments and armed forces of our country, the United States of America and the Arab allies has been bold and effective, thus lending new and awesome consequence to the implementation of United Nations resolutions, which have been made possible by the new peace of detente between the great powers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of this worthy enterprise will lead to greatly enhanced peace, freedom and stability not only in the middle east but in the world in general?

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that the action taken on this occasion will in future deter any aggressor who may feel that he can march into a small adjacent and peaceful country. I think that we all hope that the United Nations action on this occasion will guarantee that no such future conflicts need arise.

Mr. John Evans: As the military action launched against Iraq last night was in pursuance of United Nations resolution 678 and as the Secretary-General was not consulted before the attack, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that the Secretary-General will be involved in determining whether the terms of that resolution have been met?

The Prime Minister: As I explained some moments ago, there was no need to consult the Secretary-General because the Security Council had given the necessary authority for the attack to take place.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the aerial onslaught has been so professional thus far is that the United States, the United Kingdom and others regularly practise and work together, at all levels up to Ministers? That has made it possible for us to carry out an action that could not otherwise have been conducted. The low-flying

exercises that go on throughout the United Kingdom, in which United States pilots, RAF pilots and others are involved, have brought about such an operation. We should be grateful for the good and professional way in which the pilots have conducted themselves now and in the past.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There has been such close consultation in NATO for many years.

Mr. John P. Smith: I welcome the Prime Minister's message of support to the families of soldiers in the Gulf and the measures taken by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in offering special facilities to obtain information about what is happening. However, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that, when there are casualties on our side, after military considerations have been taken into mind, it is the families who are notified first, so that they do not have to hear about such casualties through the media?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises a most important question. It will be our invariable practice to ensure that the families are made aware of any casualties before they are made public. They should hear about them not from a third source but from the Ministry of Defence. That will be our intention.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only the RAF pilots who have shown superb skill and bravery in what they have done? They in their turn owe an enormous amount to the ground crews and to the maintenance and repair people, including those from RAF Stafford, who give them such superb back-up.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that. In my visit to the Gulf, I took the opportunity precisely to meet those back-up crews.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If, God forbid, our forces suffer heavy casualties in this appalling war, it may mean, in terms of the counselling of the families and of the advice given to their loved ones, that the fine people employed by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association may be overwhelmed by the demand.
What contingency plans have the Government made to call on the professional services of social workers and others employed by social work departments and by social services departments? Do not the tragic events at Lockerbie show the way ahead for the application of professional counselling services for those who have suffered tragic bereavement? What are the Government doing for the provision of such counselling services?

The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Defence will be in close contact with the appropriate services. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.

Mr. Tim Devlin: As yet, the promised strike against Israel has not taken place. Will my right hon. Friend say what the allies' reaction would be if such an attack or any other incursion into other neighbouring territories took place?

The Prime Minister: The allies have repeatedly made it clear that they would take a very … If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should prefer to put it a different way. I hope


very much that there is no attack on Israel. There is no justification for it and, if such an attack were to occur, the allies would be absolutely justified in responding most severely and most swiftly.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the Prime Minister aware that in order to keep Israel out of the war, which would have broken up the Arab aspects of the alliance, the United States gave a commitment to Israel that it would not agree to a peace conference which could have discussed the Palestinian issue and others and could have avoided the war? Is it not clear—[Interruption.] History will prove me right. Is it not clear what a malign role Israel plays in the middle eastern tragedy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not right. He says that history will prove him right. That sort of history, as Henry Ford said, is bunk.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. Friend and the whole House spare a moment to think of the continuing plight of our three hostages being held in the Lebanon? For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Government have no territorial ambitions in the Gulf and no intention of seeking long-term military bases there?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly content to make that point clear. I would add that in no sense have our hostages in the Lebanon been forgotten. They are of great concern to us and the subject of constant interest and activity on the part of the Foreign Office, which seeks to secure their release. We very much hope that they will be home.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: May I press the Prime Minister further on the important question whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations will have any part in determining whether the terms of United Nations resolutions 660 and 678 are fully met?

The Prime Minister: The Secretary-General is the servant of the Security Council. The Security Council has made its position clear. The allied forces are operating under the authority given to them.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what happened last night was a great credit to British and allied planning? Will he confirm that the fact that Scud missiles in Iraq have been knocked out makes it unlikely that the Iraqis will be able to make an attack on Israel and that that means that Saddam Hussein will not be able to divide the allies and split off the Arabs, which is clearly his intention?

The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, I very much hope that no such attack takes place. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I can make no comment on the effectiveness of the attack on the Scud missiles.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Given that so much blood is now to be spilt following the actions of Saddam Hussein and over his desire to gain control of the oil reserves of Kuwait, has the Prime Minister had any discussions with President Bush or King Fahd about some control of the oil markets of the world, to prevent people from profiteering in the current crisis?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Ian Taylor: As this is a just war, being fought to carry out United Nations resolutions, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be welcome if those nations which, for whatever reason, cannot take part in the military action themselves, would now reaffirm their support for what happened last night and give moral and, it is to be hoped, practical support in the way that they consider most appropriate—including financial support?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's addendum is equally important. I hope that nations that have made no material contribution may reconsider—if they have not yet done so—the possibility of making a financial contribution towards dealing with the difficulties faced not least by the front-line states in the Gulf area, which face such economic disruption as a result of the whole affair.

Mr. George Galloway: Is the Prime Minister aware that every one of the news correspondents based in Baghdad and broadcasting throughout the night said that they did not see a single aeroplane—so high were the aeroplanes flying that were dropping the ordnance on the streets of Baghdad? Does he not realise that the concepts of pinpoint bombing, surgical strikes and quick and clean bombing actions are a fantasy of the armchair strategists in their sandpits in the television studios.
In so far as Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, does it not follow that his own people are by definition his victims, just as much as the hostages and the people of Kuwait? Does it not give the Prime Minister a moment's pause for thought that those are the very people who, as we speak, are being dragged dead and mutilated out of the rubble of the centre of Baghdad?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may speak for himself, but he speaks for no one else.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I notice that several hon. Members were not previously rising but now are doing so. I shall call only those who have been rising and then we must move on.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Has my right hon. Friend heard that CND has set up a chatline via British Telecom? Does he agree that it would be unlikely to be allowed to do so in Baghdad? Does he further agree that, while people may be certain of their moral superiority, there is room for a certain humility if they remember that the freedoms that they so take for granted have been bought with the lives of successive generations of British and other service men?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point most eloquently.

Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Prime Minister accept that, although no one wants this war, now that it has come we must get it over with as speedily as possible and with the minimum loss of life? In that connection, does the Prime Minister consider that UN forces yet have command of the air?

The Prime Minister: It is far too early to make that judgment. From all that one can see and all the evidence that we have, the first 24 hours have been extremely successful from the allied point of view. I must reiterate to the House most passionately that there is a great deal yet to be done before we can be certain how the course of the


conflict will be run. We cannot yet say that there is command of the air. The operation has begun remarkably well and we must hope and pray that it continues equally well.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The whole House will agree that possibly the bravest people in the conflict are the families who have to stay behind and worry about their loved ones. In areas such as mine, where we have a naval and an Army base, support groups are already being set up. May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will ensure that people who are isolated, perhaps in areas that do not normally have bases, are given full support during these difficult days? I am sure that the whole House is concerned about those people and the lonely wait they have.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, it is often hard to wait and wonder. The units of the men involved will keep in close touch with people in those circumstances. The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that it expects that to be done on a wide basis and sensitively.

Mr. John McAllion: The Prime Minister has said that we will not use nuclear weapons. However, last night President Bush told the American people that this war would not be another Vietnam and that this time the American military would not fight with one hand tied behind its back. Is not that not a clear indication from the President that the green light has been given to the American military to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary? As part of his extensive consultations with the President, was the Prime Minister consulted on that matter? Did he agree to give the American military a free hand to use whatever weapons it thinks necessary?

The Prime Minister: There was nothing in President Bush's remarks that remotely approximated to the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman has drawn from them.

Sir Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great contribution has been made by the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Red Cross and the national health service in making provision for emergency treatment in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the national health service has been remarkably co-operative and has made substantial provision. We all hope that that provision will not be necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear yesterday, to the extent that extra expenditure is required for that purpose, it will be made available.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the precipitate abandonment of sanctions and the onslaught of this bloody conflict, will the Government learn some lessons? For example, the arms and ammunition used against our service men will have been sold to Iraq by western nations. Indeed, components for the manufacture of arms have been sold from this nation. Will the Government make serious efforts to develop an arms embargo to curtail the wretched trade in arms throughout the rest of the world and make sure that the opportunity for conflicts such as this is limited? Or do the Government intend to put profit before peace?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is ill informed. We have had strict control of arms sales to Iraq for a considerable number of years. As to sanctions and their abandonment, they have not been abandoned, but have been added to by the military force now operating. There was no abandonment. Even if there had been total abandonment, it would not have been precipitated; it would have been inevitable because of the way Saddam Hussein has been behaving.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, the battle having been started, it would be wise and desirable if public discussion on the tactical details and public comment on what is happening were kept to the minimum?

The Prime Minister: It is self-evidently in the interests of a successful outcome to the conflict that we are all responsible about what we say on tactical matters.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Is not it noticeable by the House that the debate has revolved around the fact that we are in the Gulf to support United Nations resolution 678? Is not that resolution the 12th in a line of resolutions going back to 2 August? Therefore, it is appropriate that all the action should be under the United Nations. Can the Prime Minister reaffirm again that we have Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti airplanes in the sky and nail the lie that this is somehow a British-American operation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I can certainly confirm that. I would add that we have French aircraft in the skies as well.

Mr. Dennis Canavan:: Will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from those euphoric warmongers who naively imagine that last night's air raids guarantee a quick and conclusive military victory? Does not the US army war college report—until recently a secret document—which concludes that air raids alone will not be able to drive the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and goes on to predict a long and bloody ground battle, with many casualties on both sides, reinforce the case for calling a halt now to hostilities and starting genuine peace negotiations which have not even been tried yet?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear twice already this afternoon that there is much more to be done. That must be self-evident to everyone. The whole purpose of the way in which the campaign is being conducted is to minimise civilian casualties. I have also made that clear. What will happen as the conflict continues, it is impossible yet to say. More has to be done. How it will fall out, we cannot yet know. What I am confident about is, first, that our forces will continue to operate with the professionalism that we have seen in the last 24 hours, and, secondly, that we will continue to have in the forefront of our minds the safety and security of our troops and our firm intention to minimise civilian casualties.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Prime Minister accept that the Ulster Unionists and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland respect his resolute leadership during the Gulf crisis? Will he also accept that the conflict could be helped to an early conclusion if all the nations that up to date have withheld their full support for the United Nations would now come behind it and fully support the troops in the Gulf?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Prime Minister accepted with approval the word "just" to describe the war. Will he explain where the justice is for the Kuwaiti people caught between the violence of Saddam Hussein and allied bombing, fearful that they will be ground into the earth, while the Emir and the royal family are living in safety and luxury?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is mistaken. The Kuwaiti people are actually caught under the oppression of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1940 and in 1967, the Soviet Union used the preoccupation of the world with events of this kind to send the Red Army into the Baltic states and into Hungary? Is not there a grave danger of history repeating itself? Will the Prime Minister take up as a matter of urgency the invitation given yesterday by Mr. Tamara Ringa of the Latvian Popular Front and the foreign secretary of the Lithuanian Parliament to send observers from Britain to the Parliaments of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius?

The Prime Minister: As I made clear to the House earlier, we take an extremely serious view, which is well known to the Soviet Union, of the events in Vilnius. We are examining what is happening to determine what else we may be able to do.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As this American-led war continues—[HON. MEMBERS: "UN war"]—Americanled war, to protect American oil interests—and as the number of British casualties arising from it increases, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has any plans to requisition private hospitals and to use the royal yacht Britannia as a hospital ship?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's tasteless intervention overlooks the fact that we have had an American and British-led peace in this country for 40 years—from which he has benefited.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall that, during the recess, I wrote to him to say that the Iraqi Assembly wanted to send a peace mission to this country to brief Members of all parties? I received no acknowledgement from his office apart from a curt note from his private secretary. Why the rush to war? Why can he not reply on this basic issue? Is not peace important? Is it the case that he is really the puppet of the President of the United States?

The Prime Minister: It is justice that is important in the Gulf region. The hon. Gentleman may have his own views about the nature of the regime; I have mine. I believe that Saddam Hussein and his regime are thoroughly evil. It is entirely right for the United Nations to give the authority that it has and I am delighted that it has the overwhelming support of this country, even though I regret that it does not have the support of the hon. Gentleman as well.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Was this war really necessary in terms of United Nations resolution 678, as sanctions have not been given a full chance to operate?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it was necessary—absolutely, totally and completely necessary. If the hon. Gentleman does not think so, he is in a minority.

Mr. Dave Nellist: How do the Prime Minister's instruction to British pilots, reported this afternoon, to minimise civilian casualties square with what President George Bush said at 2 am? He said that, unlike Vietnam, American forces in this war
would not fight with one arm tied behind their backs".
Since that war cost 57,000 American lives and 2 million Vietnamese lives, the right hon. Gentleman should, instead of defending cheap oil, stable monarchies and American strategic interests, call a ceasefire. Before the land war develops and tens or hundreds of thousands of young men and women lose their lives, the right hon. Gentleman should call a ceasefire and bring the troops home.

The Prime Minister: American pilots have had the same operational instructions as British pilots to minimise casualties. Those instructions come from their commander-in-chief, President Bush.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, throughout the United States, western Europe and the entire Arab world, millions of people are opposed to this war? They are appalled that, already, in the first 12 hours of war, more explosives have been dropped on Iraq than were dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. How many deaths do there have to be before the oil interests of the United States and western Europe are satisfied, or is the Prime Minister prepared to go back now to the United Nations to seek an early end to this war and a ceasefire, so that negotiations can take place on all the problems of the region?

The Prime Minister: How much longer would the hon. Gentleman have let the people of Kuwait suffer under the oppression that they have had? How much longer? The Security Council resolutions are entirely clear and we shall prosecute them until they are fully met.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 21 JANUARY—Debate on the Gulf.
Motions relating to the membership of the Health and Social Security Committees.
TUESDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill.
Motions relating to the establishment of European Standing Committees.
WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill.
Motions on the Scottish housing support grant orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 24 JANUARY—Debate on economic and monetary union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 25 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 28 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Ports Bill.
The House will also wish to be aware that, in view of the business we have before us, the Government do not propose to move the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords] today. I shall announce the revised arrangements for the debate on another occasion. I am authorised to say that the Chairman of Ways and Means proposes to defer consideration of the opposed private business put clown for 7 o'clock today.
[Debate on Wednesday 23 January:
Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order
Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order
Housing Revenue Account General Fund
Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order
Opposition Prayer (EDM 290).]

Dr. John Cunningham: I believe that everyone in the House will welcome the Government's decision to hold another debate on Monday on the serious position in the Gulf. Is the Leader of the House able to give us any more information yet about the nature of that debate? Will he give us an assurance that the Government have not ruled out the possibility of another statement in the House tomorrow so that we can all continue to be properly informed about developments in the Gulf?
Given the explicit threat from Iraq, repeated on more than one occasion, that this war will be waged "elsewhere", is there not an urgent need to review the security arrangements in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster and the House? Can the Leader of the House confirm that there has been an urgent look at security arrangements and that there will soon be proposals to heighten the level of security, not just for Members but for everyone who works in the Palace and all those who visit us daily?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the revenue support grant orders, which will form part of the several statements to follow, will soon be debated fully by the House so that, although we have statements now, we will have proper time to debate the orders when they are finally made?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he has approached these matters and his welcome for Monday's debate. The motion for the debate and the speakers are under consideration. I hope that the motion will be tabled on the Order Paper tomorrow.
As to his question about another statement tomorrow, and statements generally, I simply do not know what the position will be tomorrow. In general terms, I hope that it is clear from the decision we took about Monday's debate that we are not only keeping the House fully informed about developments in the Gulf, but are also giving opportunities for full debates. Clearly, I can therefore given the hon. Gentleman the general assurance that he seeks.
I can confirm that there has been an urgent review of security. I know from discussions that I have had with Members from both sides of the House that they are concerned about security. A number of steps are being taken to tighten security arrangements in the present circumstances, and the position will be continuously under review. One such step will be the wearing of passes for everyone within the precincts of the House—that will include Members, except when they are in the Chamber. Similar consultations are under way with regard to the other place.
Orders regarding matters to be raised shortly in further statements will be laid in the normal way. I can confirm that there will be a debate on those orders and I hope that that debate will take place in the reasonably near future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the many questions put to the Prime Minister during the earlier statement, I appeal to hon. Members to confine their questions to the Leader of the House to the business next week and not to raise wider issues.

Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend will know of the wide interest in the House in receiving as much information as possible about the events in the Gulf, next week and beyond. He will be aware of the limited opportunities that Members have to receive information on television. The existing television rooms may be wholly inadequate to accommodate all hon. Members who want to be kept abreast of the news. Has my right hon. Friend any information about additional television facilities to cater for colleagues who want to watch what is going on?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that there has been interest in this matter, and my hon. Friend has already raised it with me. Today and tomorrow Committee Room 13 will he available as an additional television viewing room for Members, and next week this additional facility will be provided in Conference Room J on the lower ground floor secretaries' area.

Mr. James Wallace: May I thank the Leader of the House for saying that there will be regular reports and statements and a debate next week on the Gulf?
As regards the other vital foreign affairs issue, the Baltic states, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary be prepared to make statements on that important issue, not least because, answering a private notice question yesterday, he said that one of the reasons for not referring the matter to the Security Council at this stage was that


there was still a possibility of a conference on security and co-operation in Europe. Now that that has been rejected by the Soviets, may we look forward to a statement on the Baltic states as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: It is clear that there will be considerable pressure on the business of the House in current circumstances, and we must bear that in mind. But the fact that the Foreign Secretary answered a private notice question yesterday was a clear sign that he is anxious to keep the House informed on these issues, and we will have to judge the situation day by day. I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Mr. James Hill: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for giving me foreknowledge of the fact that he was going to defer today's important debate on the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill. I fully understand his reasons: I know that President Bush and the Prime Minister deserve priority, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me adequate warning, through his Department, so that I can instruct everyone again and we can defeat this miserable Bill.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's understanding of today's postponement, which is in the interests of the House. This is primarily a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's request to ensure that he receives adequate notice of when the Bill will next come to the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to Welsh Questions next week? As he knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) passed away and his funeral is to be held on Monday afternoon. Twenty-seven questions have been tabled, 15 of them by Labour Members, 13 of whom intend to attend the funeral in Neath. Would it be possible to change the time of Welsh Questions, following which there is a serious debate? Could Welsh Questions be transferred to another day next week, or could some other arrangement be made, since not only Labour Members but the Minister of State and Tory Members representing Welsh constituencies will attend the funeral?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacGregor: I should like to express my deep regret at the death of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and my sincere condolences to his widow and family. I am not sure what is possible within the rules of the House, but I understand why the matter has been raised and I shall look at it straight away.

Mr. Peter Fry: May I point out to the Leader of the House, further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that there is a danger of the continuing deterioration in eastern Europe being overlooked in the Gulf crisis? It is a question not only of the Baltic states but of the threatened disruption of Yugoslavia, and the continuing difficulties of Romania and Bulgaria. May we before too long have a debate on eastern Europe so that these important matters can be discussed?

Mr. MacGregor: We are all extremely conscious of the seriousness of all these matters—it is merely a question of when we debate them. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Would the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the Government's contingency plans for conscription, and ask him to clear up the rumour that the Ministry of Defence has placed an order with the Glasgow firm Collins to provide 2 million conscription applications and ration books?

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard, he will find that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was clear on this point on Tuesday.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Would it be possible to broaden the housing debate next week to include two subjects causing great concern in Croydon? The first is the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by the council, and the second the position of the homeless. The problem is that bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Croydon is costing the community charge payer vast sums of money; secondly, as a result of the legislation on homelessness, huge numbers of undeserving cases are jumping the queue into council houses and genuine cases are having to wait. Could these subjects be included?

Mr. MacGregor: I quite understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of many people in Croydon about these matters, but not by the widest stretch of the imagination, in respect of the business of the House for next week, could I extend Croydon to Scotland. I suggest that there may be other ways in which to raise these legitimate matters.

Miss Kate Hoey: May I welcome the increased television facilities in the House which the Leader of the House has announced? Many of us feel less informed in this House than are the vast majority of the population who can watch BBC and ITV. Given the extremely good coverage by Cable News Network, would it be possible to have it installed in the House? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a special attempt to get it, in the next few days if possible.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall look at the matter that the hon. Lady has raised.

Mr. Bob Dunn: The Leader of the House will know that many Members on both sides are concerned not only about events in the Baltic states but about the destruction of the growing democratic movements in the so-called former autonomous republics of the Soviet empire. Will he bear in mind the point made by hon. Members on both sides about the need for an early statement or debate, as and when appropriate, on the dissolution and anarchy within the Soviet empire?

Mr. MacGregor: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot add to what I said earlier, but his point adds weight to those that others have made.

Mr. William Ross: Has the Leader of the House looked at early-day motion 299, one of the few ever signed by more than half the Members of this House?
[That, in the opinion of this House, paragraph (2) of the third Resolution of this House of 19th July 1983, which


provides that resettlement grants for former Members should not be payable to a person who has attained the age of 65 years before the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament should no longer have effect, and that the following new provision should be made: (a) That the resettlement grant should not be payable, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament, to any person who has attained the age of 65 years at the dissolution of the preceeding Parliament; but That (b) regardless of age, a person who has completed a total of 20 years' service as a Member of this House becomes eligible for the grant when it becomes payable under the first paragraph of the third Resolution of 19th July 1983, irrespective of whether that service was continuous, subject to paragraph (3) of the said Resolution.]
When was the last time that happened? What is the right hon. Gentleman's view of the sentiment expressed in that motion?

Mr. MacGregor: I could not have missed early-day motion 299 given the number of signatories to it. The position on the issue raised in it is fairly clear: it has been looked at by the Top Salaries Review Body on more than one occasion and the arrangements that we have are those recommended by thhe TSRB. I do not want to go into detail now, but. I do not think it will be possible to debate the matter next week. I have today tabled on the Order Paper notice of the introduction of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill, which we shall debate before too long. The resettlement grant issue in early-day motion 299 is, however, quite separate from that Bill—it is a distinct issue. The arrangements in the Bill do not apply to the way in which the resettlement grant is operated. Nevertheless, it may be possible for some hon. Members to raise tangentially on that occasion the issues that concern them in early-day motion 299.

Mr. George Foulkes: Without detracting in any way front the importance of Monday's debate, will the Leader of the House try to find a date for a debate on famine in Africa where thousands of people are dying today so that we can consider putting the same kind of determination, energy and money into solving that problem that has gone into the Gulf?

Mr. MacGregor: As I said the other day, the Government share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that matter and that is why we had a statement just before the House rose for Christmas. The hon. Gentleman will understand the pressures on the business of the House next week, which means that I cannot promise anything in Government time, but there are other ways in which the subject can be raised when the Government will be happy to respond.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House allow an early debate next week on the coal mining industry because of the uncertainty that is hanging over it as a result of the statement made by Mr. Baker, the chief executive of National Power? Long-term waste disposal by British Coal in my constituency necessitates a private Bill in the House and if there is doubt, or if there are to be changes to the mining industry, there could be substantial consequences for my constituents. Such a

debate is needed urgently because that Bill is due to start its passage in the other place by the end of this month. We need an early debate on the future of the mining industry.

Mr. MacGregor: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. Clearly, there will be no opportunity to debate the matter next week, but if he wishes to develop the points that he has made today other opportunities are available to him in the House.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House extend Monday's debate beyond 10 o'clock so that Mr. Speaker is not put in the invidious position whereby if the same Privy Councillors who have risen on each of the three previous occasions rise on Monday no time will be left for Back Benchers?

Mr. MacGregor: There was a great deal of agreement that last week's arrangements were the right ones, hut, as I have already said, the arrangements for Monday's debate are under consideration.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the announcement of motions on Monday on the Health and Social Services Select Committees and on Wednesday on the European Standing Committees, but what was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's self-appointed task during the Christmas recess to consider the question of the Northern Ireland Select Committee? Let democracy be returned to Northern Ireland as well as to Kuwait.

Mr. MacGregor: I have to confine myself to the business for next week. The motion concerning the European Standing Committees is on Tuesday. Those are two urgent matters which it is important that the House resolves quickly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Why are we to have an early bath tonight with the censoring of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill and the disappearance of private business? If the House had dealt with that business, it would have been able to deal with any emergency in the Gulf.

Mr. MacGregor: It is for the convenience of the House. It is clear that this afternoon's statements will continue for some considerable time and we then have an important debate on the Ibbs report on which we must take the views of the House and that will take up a great deal of today's parliamentary time. Therefore, it was thought to be for the convenience of Members generally to arrange business in this way.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the Leader of the House aware that some aspects of security in this place seem to be working extremely well? Is he aware that as I came through New Palace Yard this morning I was stopped by a policeman who had never seen me before in my 25 years here and found it somewhat incredible that I was a Member of Parliament?

Mr. MacGregor: I had better not comment further on that.

Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the speed of events in the Gulf, and the predictability of Gulf debates mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), would not it be better if we arranged a daily statement, or one every two days, on the situation in the Gulf so that responsible Ministers


could come to the Dispatch Box, more Members could ask questions about what is going on and more information could be more readily imparted to hon. Members rather than us hearing the opinions of the same Members?

Mr. MacGregor: No, it is much better to judge when statements or debates should take place as and when the need arises. I should have thought the amount of time that the House has given to the Gulf since we returned from the Christmas recess is a clear measure of our willingness to debate the matter frequently. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition when he said in his opening question to the Prime Minister earlier today that that very fact demonstrates the superiority of democracy.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Leader of the House agree that we are closing down for the weekend when we are at war and would it not be a good idea to have a two-hour debate on Saturday and Sunday? The Halifax Evening Courier nightly carries pictures of young men and women, and anxious desperate relatives. Would not they have something to focus on if the House were sitting? These are grave times. Surely to sit for a couple of hours on Saturday and Sunday would be the right thing to do to keep informed those who are so desperately worried about what is happening when there could be an escalation of the fighting and many casualties over the weekend.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already emphasised our commitment to keeping the House fully informed, but on some of the matters to which the hon. Lady refers there are many other ways of giving that infomation. It does not always have to be done through the House. It is much better to judge when the House should deal with such matters as and when the need arises.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is right and proper that statements and debates on the Gulf war take precedence over other business, but I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will impose the 10-minute limit on speeches on Monday.
May I urge the Leader of the House to give serious consideration to an early debate within the next week or so on the recommendations made by the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha tragedy? I should have thought that that report needs to be debated in the near future because of the serious concern felt by all the families of the men and women employed on rigs and production platforms. They deserve nothing less than an early debate in the House of Commons.

Mr. MacGregor: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, but we must debate many pressing matters in the coming weeks in addition to the debates which usually take place at this time of year. All that has to be fitted in with the need to report on the Gulf as and when the need arises. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the business of the House is under heavy pressure and I cannot promise him a debate on that in the near future.

Sir Peter Emery: The motions relating to the European Standing Committees do not appear in today's Order Book nor in the Order Book that I have just obtained from the Table Office. When will those appear and how will they differ from the orders that the House passed before Christmas?

Mr. MacGregor: They have been on the Order Paper. There are not only the orders that I have laid, but there are amendments to them. I have seen them on the Order Paper, but if they are not there today I shall make sure that they are there tomorrow.

Local Government Finance (England)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make a statement about the local government finance settlement for 1991–92.
On 31 October, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced the Government's proposals for next year's finance settlement. As the House will know, since then I announced that the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of the structure and finance of local government. We are looking both at longer-term changes and at changes that we might implement in the short term. My statement today deals with the changes that we can make for next year, but announces first our decisions following consultation on the finance settlement for 1991–92.
I have considered carefully all the representations that we received on the proposed finance settlement from the associations and from individual authorities. My hon. Friends the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible have reported to me on the meetings that they held with a number of authorities.
My predecessor's proposals envisaged that it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend £39 billion in aggregate. That is an increase of 19 per cent. over the corresponding figure for 1990–91—a very substantial increase. It follows an increase of 10 per cent. for this year over last year, and takes account of the fact that local authority spending has grown substantially in the last three years. I am satisfied that £39 billion is fully sufficient for local authorities' services, taking account of all the pressures that local authorities face, as well as the scope for saving and what the country can afford.
I considered the representations that were made about the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments. My right hon. Friend had proposed a number of improvements for 1991–92, and with those improvements in place, I am satisfied with the method for calculating SSAs for 1991–92.
My right hon. Friend proposed that aggregate external finance—that is, central support from grants and from business rates—should be set at £26·05 billion—an increase of 12·8 per cent. on this year's settlement. I considered very carefully the argument for providing a greater level of support from national taxation to reduce the burden on community charge payers generally, but I concluded that in the present circumstances—notably those in the middle east—no further increase can be afforded in the amount of AEF beyond the increase of nearly £3 billion already proposed. So I confirm today that figure for the increase in aggregate external finance.
I am therefore fixing AEF and its distribution on the basis described in the consultation paper that was issued on 31 October. I have placed in the Vote Office, and have sent to local authorities, exemplifications showing the final standard spending assessments and grant entitlements for each authority that will follow from the settlement. The formal reports will be laid before the House shortly and debated in the normal way.
When we moved from rates to the community charge, the Government were concerned to protect many of those whose bills rose significantly as a result of the changes. We

therefore introduced some transitional relief to protect those former rate payers, and elderly or disabled people even if they did not pay rates.
My predecessor announced in July improvements to the transitional relief arrangements that would take effect in April. The Government have reviewed the impact of those arrangements, and we have decided that they are no longer adequate for the present circumstances. We intend to replace them from April with a community charge reduction scheme that will reflect the improvements already announced but provide considerably more help.
The new scheme is designed to help those whose bills have increased significantly over what they paid in rates. It will continue to limit increases over rates. This year, the limit is £3 a week. The limit next year will be £2 a week, as previously proposed—but unlike the transitional relief scheme, the new scheme will be based not on notional charges but on actual community charges after allowing for the unwinding of the safety net. Sadly, in many areas local authorities increased their spending by much more than we had provided for in the settlement, and almost all actual charges were higher than those notional charges.
As I shall explain, the new scheme will provide help for many of those in sheltered housing who largely did not qualify for transitional relief. The new scheme will reduce the amount paid in charges by £1·7 billion—of which £1·2 billion is new money—compared with £350 million of transitional relief this year. The number of people receiving help will go up from about 7 million this year to more than 18 million next year, which, as the House will realise, represents more than half of all those liable to pay the community charge.
The House will be aware that many people who lived in sheltered accommodation were ill-served by the old scheme. No matter how many people live in a sheltered housing scheme, in many cases they shared an entitlement to transitional relief as if there were only two people living there. Under my new scheme, most individuals or couples in such accommodation will be able to qualify for a reduction in their own right. Within the new scheme, that will provide about £150 million of help for these people. I know that that change will be warmly welcomed.
I also propose that my new scheme will give more help to people who previously benefited from charitable rate relief. It will require local authorities to take account of charitable relief granted under the General Rate Act 1967 when calculating the assumed rates bill. Among those who will benefit will be clergymen who live in church accommodation and elderly people who live in almshouses or other accommodation provided by a charity. Further details have been sent to local authorities today. Copies of the letter are in the Vote Office.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a separate announcement on the wider public expenditure and financing implications of the new scheme.
By adding the new scheme to the increase in AEF announced by my predecessor, the Government will be providing more than £4·25 billion extra support for England alone towards community charges next year than has been given this year. In addition, there is help from community charge benefit, which is paid to about 10 million people and is running at nearly £2 billion this year.
Given the extensive help available from relief and benefits, it is not surprising that the community charge that people actually pay on average is much less than the figures that local authorities have announced as their


charges. This year, although the headline average charge was £357, the average amount payable was only about £280. Next year, provided that local authorities budget in line with the realistic provision that we have made, it is within their power to ensure that the average amount actually paid is less than £300.
It is of the utmost importance that that additional Government help should go to the benefit of charge payers, not to finance higher spending. In October, my right hon. Friend announced the criteria that he was minded to adopt in using his powers to cap excessive budgets, or excessive increases in budgets between years. I should make it clear to the House and to local authorities that I stand firmly by the intentions that he then announced. Let nobody think that the additional support means that authorities can relax their efforts to control spending.
The finance settlement I have announced and the new community charge reduction scheme reflect the Government's commitment to financing local government. It will now be for local authorities to provide the services that their charge payers want, at a price that their charge payers can afford.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement leaves the fundamentals of the poll tax completely unchanged, and ensures that the average poll tax fixed for the coming year will be not the £380 that he and his predecessors specified but well over £400 per person? It is presumably because that is so that his statement has been made so late on a day that has been dominated by momentous events elsewhere.
Does the Secretary of State accept that disappointment at his statement will be felt all the more keenly because of the expectations that he aroused? During the Tory leadership contest, he gave the impression that he would act immediately to relieve local government and poll tax payers alike of the burdens of the poll tax. His statement today shows that, while he may have laboured mightly, when he came to deliver, it turned out to be just a phantom pregnancy.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his statement will come as a special blow to local government? Surely, from the Secretary of State's earlier statements, local government had a right to expect that he would tackle the obvious flaws in calculating standard spending assessments, and the basic inadequacy of the revenue support grant, which unfortunately he has now confirmed will rise by only £183 million, or 1·9 per cent., over the figure for the current year. It is the inadequacy of that figure which lies at the heart of the poll tax catastrophe.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, when he talks about £3 billion of new money, £2 billion of it comes from business rate payers, and only a tiny proportion from the revenue support grants? That is the battle that he should have fought and won; that is the battle that he has apparently ducked. What can he say to local authorities which are caught between inadequate revenue support grant and the threat of capping, with budgets which are now in deep disarray and which must now inflict deep and damaging cuts in services already stretched to breaking point? Does he recognise that those

problems have been made more difficult, from an administrative point of view, by the delay in confirming the level of revenue support grant?
How can he adhere to the ridiculous assumption that 100 per cent. of the poll tax will be collected, when low levels of collection are now widely admitted and alone will add large sums to poll tax bills this year?
The additional money for transitional relief is welcome, notwithstanding the fact that it is a further admission that the poll tax is basically flawed and unworkable. It is the third such scheme to be announced in 15 months and, if the Secretary of State persists in asserting that the original scheme benefited 7 million people, he must not be surprised if we are sceptical about the figures which he produces today.
Welcome though the extent of the scheme may be, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise—and how many of his hon. Friends recognise—that it retains many of the flaws of the original scheme? What use is it to those people who move house, or who live in large households, as both categories are excluded? Why has nothing been done to help student nurses or non-working wives? When it comes to paying for the new scheme, what bad news does the Chancellor have up his sleeve when he makes his statement on the subject?
How does the Secretary of State expect local authorities to cope administratively with the change in the rules, which will require the liability of every potential taxpayer to be recalculated, in the few weeks available to them?
If the statement is disappointing in dealing with short-term issues, it is equally depressing in respect of long-term solutions. Quite contrary to the easy assumptions about getting rid of the poll tax, it is now clear that no solution to the problem of poll tax is in sight. If the Secretary of State were Archimedes, he would still be wallowing in his bath.
The truth is that no real relief from the poll tax is on offer, either now or in the future. What we need now is not a community charge reduction scheme but a community charge abolition scheme. If we are to be rescued from the poll tax nightmare, we shall need a Labour Government to do the job.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will realise that the fact that my statement has been delayed is in no way of my making. It is the consequence of the important statement that the Prime Minister made today, and I am sure that everyone in the House fully understands that.
The hon. Gentleman has missed the essence and the mood of what we have been saying on this matter, and in a wider context, recently. He knows perfectly well that there are steps one can take in the short term, but that others require legislation and can only be taken in the long term. He would have shown a great deal more confidence in his alternatives to the community charge if he had been prepared to come and talk about them, as opposed to cowering behind the anonymity of his proposals. We have already begun an interesting consultative process with other political parties, which have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to talk about the issue.
It is characteristic of the Labour party that it is prepared to make a lot of noise without any substance whatsoever in what it has to say. Nothing shows more clearly the reality of the hon. Gentleman's position than his dismissal of my announcement today as though it was


of no consequence. The fact that £1·2 billion of extra money was made available to deal with these problems is apparently a matter of no consequence for the Opposition. The whole House, and a wider constituency outside it, will have regard to that profligate attitude to public expenditure from the Opposition.
When he considers the fundamental issue of whether we have been concerned to help or not, the hon. Gentleman should realise that total Government additional support has risen by 12·8 per cent. over the announcements that we have made. It is perfectly true that that figure is a composite of Government support and the unified business rate, but both are within the gift of Government to determine, and it is quite right that they should be regarded as part of a package in the overall settlement.
The standard spending assessments of local authorities are up by 19·4 per cent. for England, so the idea that we have had no regard to the requirements and needs of local authorities simply stands up to no examination whatsoever.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has revealed his own lack of confidence in his proposals and, by his failure to produce any criticisms, proved how right we are in what we have said today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. 1 draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are two more statements after this and that the Secretary of State specifically said in his statement that the formal reports will be laid before the House shortly and will be debatable. I ask Members to ask questions on matters of substance, and not on general matters appertaining to this important issue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr.Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to hear the point before I can rule.

Mr. Douglas: We know that you are under a lot of pressure, Mr. Speaker, but it would be very helpful if you could give us some idea of the time that you are likely to allot to the statements. I do not think that this is an unfair suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Member has asked me, I imagine that it will be about half an hour each.

Sir Hugh Rossi: May I assure my right hon. Friend that, irrespective of what the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has just said, his statement will be warmly welcomed by the hard-pressed and the oppressed charge payers of the London borough of Haringey, especially the statement that additional relief will be attached to actual, rather than notional, charge.
However, without wishing to diminish the Government's generosity in making £1·2 billion available, the Government's subvention is not enough. More than anything else, financial discipline is required from the local authorities concerned. Therefore, why has the London borough of Haringey been allowed not to produce its accounts for audit for the past five years, when an Act of Parliament requires it to do so within six months if it is not

to act illegally? Why has no action been taken to assert financial discipline upon that local authority and other similar local authorities?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He will realise that the Government's capping powers have protected his borough from the worst ravages of increasing expenditure. However, as he says, in many circumstances that can never be enough to meet the ambitions of some of the charge payers concerned. He raises a most serious matter by drawing our attention to the fact that there is a lacuna in the accounting arrangements. In the Department, we treat that extremely seriously, and my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, South (Mr. Portillo), will be writing to my hon. Friend tomorrow.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, now that he has admitted that about 18 million people need some help to pay a flat rate charge, he has shown up the inadequacy of the poll tax as a basic tax for local government? While we welcome some of the changes that he has made, some of which reflect upon him and his predecessors—the changes to help people in sheltered housing schemes and affecting churches, for example —why did he reject the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum collection, which the Audit Commission has backed within the past few days?
We shall continue to try to persuade the Secretary of State that a local income tax would be much fairer. Will he now admit, however, that the misery of income tax—I mean the misery of poll tax—[Laughter.] I can tell hon. Members that the misery of income tax is nowhere near as bad as the misery of poll tax. Will the Secretary of State admit that that misery will be with the people of this country until after the next general election?

Mr. Heseltine: I had the privilege of listening to the hon. Gentleman expound at length on the miseries of local income tax when he came to see me earlier this week: it was one of the helpful parts of the consultation process that is now under way.
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the 20 per cent. element. It is necessary to make a judgment in such circumstances. Primary legislation would have been required to deal with the matter, which would have taken considerable time, pre-empted the review on which we have embarked and denied the principle of general universality on which the community charge is based. Moreover, it would not, in our view, have addressed the most urgent need—the need to protect those whose payments were affected the most adversely by the community charge proposals. That had arisen because Labour and, sadly, some Liberal authorities had such profligate expenditure patterns.

Mr. Robin Squire: Given the rumours of a cut in the previously announced figure, my right hon. Friend deserves sincere congratulations not only on producing an increase of over £1,000 million, but on directing it especially towards those whose payments under the old rating system have risen the most—and, of course, those in sheltered housing. Will he redouble his efforts—particularly in the light of today's world news, which obviously overshadows his statement—to make it crystal clear to any local authority contemplating large


increases that such increases will flow directly from that authority's decisions, and are in no way a result of the generous settlement that he announced today?

Mr. Heseltine: Anyone who studies the figures will realise that there is a political alternative. It is plain that, by and large, on average, Labour authorities charge a great deal more than do Conservative authorities. Under pressure from my hon. Friend, I will make it my business to reveal the political impact of the community charge, depending on which party is in control.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: May I remind the Secretary of State that one reason for that is the fact that it is easier to get a child under pre-school age admitted to a nursery in a Labour authority than it is in any Tory authority in the country? That has to be paid for.
Can the right hon. Gentleman name a single problem or anomaly among those that he claims to have corrected today—or claims that his predecessor corrected—that was not raised during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988? There can be none, because the Government were warned of them all. The Secretary of State knows that; will he admit it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us how the measures announced today will increase local government accountability, which is supposed to be at the heart of the poll tax? Where is the element of accountability in the maintaining of a flat-rate tax controlled by central Government, irrespective of ability to pay?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman had followed what I said carefully enough, he would have realised that the new community charge reduction scheme does not affect the difference between this year's charge and next year's. If local authorities increase their charges, that will flow through to the charge payer, maintaining the principle of accountability.
I return to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point about the provision of education justifying increased expenditure in Labour authorities. What the hon. Gentleman must consider is whether the standards of service in inner-city schools and on inner-city housing estates justify the levels of expenditure with which they are often associated.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rested on the central platform that there would have to be a recalculation of each person's payment, and that the system was therefore inoperable. Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that such calculations are undertaken with the use of enormously sophisticated computer software and hardware, and that district councils have already invested in that equipment —which will more than cope, in nanoseconds, with the modest extra calculation that will be needed?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We tried to have regard to local government computer software programmes and to confine the changes that we have made to those likely to have the least effect on, in particular, the costs that will result. It is not always possible to guarantee that 100 per cent., but we have borne it very much in mind.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents need an adequate police force and an adequate fire service, manned to Home Office standards, but cannot have them? Will the money be provided for those standards to be reached? Is he aware that my constituents need nursery schools—and are asking for them—and that they need more home helps and meals on wheels? Judging by the pre-run budget that it has just been given, my local authority will have to impose a massive increase in poll tax, and it still has to find £6 million to pay for cuts made last year and the year before.

Mr. Heseltine: If the standard spending assessment for the hon. Gentleman's local authority has risen by 20 per cent. in a year, that must reflect the fact that the Government anticipate a wider range of services. There is always a limit to the extra money that can be provided within the constraints of public expenditure.
The police authorities are subject to the same rules as other authorities; when their budgets have been fixed, it will be a question of discussing the effect of the capping regimes in the light of those budgets. It is for the police —as it is for every body that provides a public service—to ensure that they are providing value for money within the limits of the cash made available to them. Not all police expenditure is about bobbies on the beat; as the Audit Commission revealed, there are areas of potential economy in many of the services that the police provide, and it is in the interests of good policing as much as in those of the taxpayer for those economies to be pursued.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Undoubtedly, the measures announced by my right hon. Friend will be welcomed everywhere by the millions who will gain from them. Let me, however, raise an anomaly which is not merely financial but moral—the position of those who must pay the charge from the wages of their spouses. To my knowledge, those are the only people with no incomes who have to pay 100 per cent. This is not just a question of money; it is a moral issue, especially as our party—and, I trust, the whole House—is pro-family.
I hope that, in the long term, we shall be able to separate local and national finance-raising and local and national powers, and that we can end the continual battle between local and national Government. It is doing nothing for democracy.

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend, who is a considerable authority on the subject, will know that the more acute problems will be dealt with by the safety net of the community welfare programmes, which will help couples on lower incomes. Dealing with the principle of payment by the spouse with no individual income, however, would have required the introduction of a relief that could have benefited the spouses of extremely wealthy people. We therefore felt that it was not a priority.

Mr. William Ross: I hesitate to intervene on what seems, on the face of it, to be solely an English debate. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that although Northern Ireland retains the rating system, it bears a relationship to the rateable valuation of an area in the north of England. What will be the basis for future local government finance in Northern Ireland, now


that the old basis has disappeared? Can we look forward to a common system of local government finance throughout the United Kingdom in the long term?

Mr. Heseltine: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that I am not in a position to answer that question, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will attend to it with expedition.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend realise just how dramatic an effect the help that he is providing will have on many people in high-charging Labour authorities, especially in the north, now that charges are to become actual rather than notional? I welcome the fact that the community charge is becoming even less of a flat-rate system.
Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that many Conservative Members would like his long-term review to reduce bills dramatically—if not by half—through the transfer of the costs of the bulk of education?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be fully aware that I have heard his views on this subject before, but that in no way discounts the value of his contributions. His suggestion must be seen in the context of the review that we are conducting.

Mr. David Clelland: The Secretary of State must be aware that it will be widely recognised throughout the country that his announcement is a further vain attempt to buy votes for the Tory party using public money. It appears from his statement that he does not want to buy any votes from Newcastle upon Tyne. Contrary to his final comments, the people of Newcastle will not be able to enjoy the services that charge payers want and are faced with a £12·5 million reduction in budget as a result of his financial regime. That means the closure of homes and schools and cuts in services for which people are crying out. Will he confirm that the assumed personal community charge of £411·52 quoted in his document ignores the £1 million reduction in SSA which the document also announces, and that that means a further £5 increase in the community charge? Will he also confirm that it ignores the increase that will be necessary to allow for non-payment which could take the community charge in Newcastle to as much as £435 with an attendant reduction in services? How can that possibly be fair or even sensible?

Mr. Heseltine: There is always a demand for more services, but there is also a demand for people to pay lower bills to the central or local authority and a balance must be struck. The balance cannot be struck by licensing people not to pay the legitimate bills sent to them. I cannot accept the implication in what the hon. Gentleman said that somehow we must budget to assume that we will not collect the bills.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept from one who maintains close liaison with local government throughout the country that the additional £1·2 billion that he announced today will be more than welcome? I am gratified that he has listened to my representations on behalf of those who live in low-rated accommodation, many of whom in my

constituency and throughout the north of England will have substantial reductions of £100 or £150 in their community charge bills next year.
While I welcome all that my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him to do nothing to encourage the profligate Cleveland county council to go on spending money in the way that it does, such as repainting its red fire engines with a new colour? Will my right hon. Friend encourage Cleveland county council to take on board the proposal that I put to it earlier this week—that it engages Sir John Harvey-Jones to do a management audit and save the people of Cleveland the millions of pounds that are being wasted now?

Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's interest and knowledge in the subject and I listened carefully to what he said. I greatly regret the fact that the community charge in Cleveland is £421; its citizens would have been better served if it had been lower. I should be the first to recognise that my hon. Friend is right that the scheme that we have announced today will lead to a significant reduction in the bills of some charge payers. I am thinking of people living in areas where the rateable values and the sums paid under the rates were low, but where there have been significant increases as a result of the change to the community charge. In many cases, such people can expect significant reductions in their bills.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and I are perplexed by his generosity as it affects Lambeth? A year ago the average rate per head in Lambeth was £275. This year, the poll tax, as capped, is £522 per head and next year, under his forecast, it will be £546 per head. Does he realise that we would be twice as well off if we returned to the rates?

Mr. Heseltine: The London borough of Lambeth would be twice as well off it if turned itself into a Conservative-controlled authority.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and welcome much of what he had to say. I shall go away and read the small print. Is he aware that many local authorities such as mine—Kirklees—are increasing their community charge by huge amounts and blaming it on the Government for lack of funds and grants? Will he please emphasise today to the House and the people outside the increase in money that they are to receive?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend will join me and my colleagues in putting over that important case. The SSAs of Kirklees have been increased by 19 per cent. during the year which is a dramatic increase. It shows that there is an ability to provide an attractive range of services at the sort of figures that the Government have suggested will flow from the community charge. It must be an important part of my responsibility—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me—to make much of the fact that the Government are now providing some £4 billion more in support of local government and its services than they did last year.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State recall that many of his hon. Friends campaigned for the poll tax on the basis that it simplified local government expenditure and made it easier to


understand? Does he believe that they were correct? How far do his proposals today make it simpler, and does he accept that the only thing that is simpler for my constituents to understand is the widespread hardship that has been caused, particularly to the married woman who has no income of her own and to young people on low incomes, many of whom are having to move from one set of accommodation to another fairly frequently and need their poll tax registration done regularly and their rebates varied? That is causing a major administrative burden for local authorities.

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman tells many of his constituents that their bills will go down next year, he will find that they understand, even if he does not.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will welcome the changes made to the transitional relief? In the light of their wish to be able to reach for their calculators to find out how it will affect them, when and how will he make available simple exemplifications? Hereford and Worcester county council is one of the lowest recipients of grant. Is he aware that there is a grievance in respect of the funding of its police authority, which is in the vanguard of obeying Home Office instructions to civilianise and, as a consequence, finds itself penalised on its SSA and therefore further deprived of grant? Will he reconsider that anomaly?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend should know that we will look at all these matters in the context of the budget-setting arrangements that must take place before we can reach reasonable judgments about the questions that he is putting to me. That applies particularly to the capping of authorities. The best that I can do to help my hon. Friend on the first part of his question is to say that, although we cannot produce examples of the consequences of our scheme until we know the budgets that have been set by the local authorities, we can produce examples in hypothetical circumstances from which I am sure my hon. Friend will be able to draw his own conclusions.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the size of the fire service and police service is set by the Home Office. Is he aware that recently the chief constable of West Yorkshire said that next year there will be 500 fewer bobbies on the beat because of the lack of funds? Given his answer a short time ago about the efficiency of police authorities, is he saying that the chief constable of West Yorkshire is running an inefficient force? Does he still consider this to be a Tory tax?

Mr. Heseltine: I would make no such suggestion to the chief constable of any of the police authorities. However, as I said, police authorities have a responsibility to use their money effectively like all others—

Mr. William O'Brien: On police officers.

Mr. Heseltine: Yes, the hon. Gentleman has made my point. It is incumbent on the authorities to look at their other expenditure to see what economies there can be. When they have set their budgets, all those factors will be taken into account in any discussions that we have.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I believe that my right hon. Friend's statement today will be read across London with interest and, no doubt when it is digested, it will be approved because of its basic fairness. Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that it is essential for local government finance to retain the principles of accountability and that everyone of adult age should pay a share of the cost? When he goes into his wider review, he may find that he will not need to make too many more changes to gain approval from the British public.

Mr. Heseltine: I am tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, but the substance of the advice that I get on this matter is—how can I put it?—confused.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement that the scheme will continue to support charges that are higher than they were under the rates is questionable? Charges in parts of London are two or three times as high as the rates. As his party is the party of the family, will he take into account the disruptive effects of the poll tax on family life and get rid of this unjust and unworkable tax?

Mr. Heseltine: I wish that the Labour party would come and talk to me about its ideas for a workable alternative. I am sure that they are as coherent and viable as the Liberal party's. If it can do so, why cannot the Labour party? The essence of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that the community charge is significantly higher than the rates. I have introduced this scheme precisely to address that issue.

Mr. Graham Riddick: My right hon. Friend's new community charge reduction scheme will receive a warm welcome from thousands, if not millions, of people who live in low rateable value houses in the north of England. It will help many pensioners as well as other people. Will he join me in condemning my local Labour council, Kirklees, which is failing local residents by trying to levy as high a community charge as possible to score party political points against the Government?

Mr. Heseltine: I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen the virtues of the scheme so clearly and quickly. I strongly commend it. It appears that Kirklees is causing more trouble in the north than even I had realised. I am sure that he will join my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) in launching a formidable attack on it.

Mr. John Evans: I wish to raise several issues about the settlement for St. Helens, but in view of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, I shall concentrate on only one. Is the Secretary of State aware that the regional burns unit at Whiston hospital in St. Helens and Knowsley health authority has been designated to receive casualties from the Gulf? Is he aware that it could cause the social services and housing departments of St. Helens authority —a capped authority—considerable problems if it is required to provide housing for the families of service men who are incarcerated in that hospital? Will he give an undertaking that if such a situation arises he will ensure that the authority's additional costs will be met in full by the Department?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that none of us wants to see the circumstances that he described. He knows full well that if emergencies arise,


they will be dealt with properly and that we shall consider their consequences. It would be wrong to hypothesise such consequences today.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My local authority believes that the all-ages social index gives far too much to profligate authorities such as Blackburn, Burnley and Preston. Nevertheless, my constituents will be delighted that the extra money will go not to spendthrift local authorities such as Lancashire county council, but directly to charge payers, helping especially those in sheltered housing and in previously low-rated authorities. It will apply to the actual charge rather than the notional charge, which took a dickens of a lot of explaining to anybody.

Mr. Heseltine: I congratulate my hon. Friend on moving with the speed of light to the heart of the matter. I hope that she will repeat her comments loudly, clearly and often in Lancashire, because the message will then be widely understood and welcomed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not there something radically wrong when on 12 successive occasions Ministers have had to come to the House of Commons to announce major changes to the poll tax? Is not there something wrong when the two constituencies that I represent, wholly or in part—Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire—[Interruption.] Is not there something wrong when the two local authorities that I represent—Bolsover and North-
East Derbyshire—have total revenue support grant of £66 million compared with £188 million for Westminster? If we had the same standard spending assessment as Westminster, calculated on the same basis, we would not have the poll tax and we would be giving people money back.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that Bolsover receives £133 of safety netting. I hope that he explains to his constituents the benefits that the Government have bestowed on them, not in any way as a result of the articulate representations of their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Jim Lester: I commend my right hon. Friend for listening carefully to all the representations that have been made and for making help available where it is most needed. Many councils resent the carrying over of debts from the current year. I have considerable sympathy for those who cannot pay, who could be helped if councils were given more freedom to arrange methods of payment for them, but I condemn those who will not pay.

Mr. Heseltine: I have joined my hon. Friend many times in condemning members of local authorities or charge payers who refuse to pay. I deplore, without reservation, hon. Members who encourage non-payment, which can only have the effect of increasing the charges of those who keep within the law. I very much support my hon. Friend's comments on that. The debts of the previous period must be collected. If people continue to delay payment, there must never come a time when councils stop pursuing payment.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As the representative of the other half of North-East Derbyshire—the bigger half—may I point out to the Minister that pages 1 to 13 of the document show the standard spending assessment broken down into revenue support, poll tax

and the business rate? It would help hon. Members to compare the grants for authorities if the figures were shown as percentages, for which I asked in a parliamentary question on last year's figures. It was produced, but placed in the Library. Could the figures be made readily available, perhaps in Hansard or in some document that could be collected from the Letter Board? We could than see that some of the figures that we have been given are not as precise or exact as is suggested.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman was obviously able to obtain the information that he required. I do not know whether other hon. Members wished to obtain the same information, but doubtless he could have made it available to them if they did. As it is apparent that the information is available, we appear to be being as helpful as is necessary in the circumstances. As part of a deal, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could be helpful by paying his poll tax.

Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but to encourage accountability between different councils, particularly shire county councils, will he urgently—I have twice asked for this in the House and have been assured that it will be produced —publish a table of the full-time equivalent staff of different shire counties to enable us to know which are employing too many staff and, as a result, setting bills that are too high?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I was last in the Department, we had a joint manpower watch report which gave us detailed information. I have not checked on how it is proceeding, but, spurred on by my hon. Friend, I shall do so with dispatch.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why does not the Secretary of State concede that, with the latest change, the Government have made a complete pig's ear of local authority finance? At successive stages, we warned the Government that that would be so. Were it not for the ghoulish shadow of Finchley lady, I am sure that the Government would abolish the poll tax altogether.
It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to work on calculations that local authorities will achieve 100 per cent. collection. The borough of Newham has managed to achieve about 58 per cent. and hopes to achieve about 75 per cent. Thousands of poor Newham people are being taken through the courts by Newham borough council —people who need pay only 20 per cent.—because the Secretary of State says that debts should be collected. Is he aware of the extreme hardship that the poll tax is causing in inner-city areas of London? Does he feel any shame or place any responsibility on his own head for the misery of people being dragged through the courts in Newham and elsewhere?

Mr. Heseltine: I am tired of being lectured about the problems of the poor by a party that consists of many members who refused to pay the poll tax in the first place. If I may be frank, everyone understands that the poorest people were protected by the changes in the community charge, either by the direct benefit or by the uprating of their benefits. There were difficulties because certain local authorities—usually Labour controlled—set the community charge above the level that the Government had deemed necessary. It was that increase that the poor found difficult to pay.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: May I give credit where credit is due and thank my right hon. Friend for acting to protect 18 million people. Does he agree that, if local authorities—many of which, I am afraid, are Labour controlled—followed his inspiration, they could start by protecting many of our constituents? I have no doubt that many of our constituents still do not fully appreciate that they are suffering at the hands of local authorities. Those local authorities use the Government as an excuse. My right hon. Friend's action today has demonstrated otherwise. As long as local authorities such as mine continue to contribute £5,000 to funding Labour women's conferences in towns, there is no excuse for an excessive community charge.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend gave a classic example of just how profligate local Labour authorities can be in their disregard of those who pay the bills. As the figures in front of me show, by and large Labour authorities cause higher community charges. That unfailing generalisation flows out of their actions. It is fundamentally important that, rather than just clamouring for endless extra expenditure, the Labour party should try to get that deal to their charge payers.

Mr. James Pawsey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing substantial added funding, which will be widely welcomed by community charge payers in Warwickshire. But—this is an important but—the SSA mechanism continues to be blunt, despite the ingenious ideas from my right hon. Friend's officials. Will he therefore give an undertaking that, where real injustice has been faced by a local authority, additional funding will be made available to it to underwrite that injustice?

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has given attention to the SSAs. I have today announced the closing of the options for the settlement which we are discussing. I am the first to recognise that all these matters include an element of judgment. If my hon. Friend wishes to continue discussions with us about the SSAs for the following year, of course we will listen with the same care as we did this year.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall have to draw questions to a halt and close the exchanges at 6 o'clock. I ask hon. Members to ask brief questions.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his welcome statement gives the most benefit to those in the lowest rated properties, including pensioners and those who are disabled and on benefit? Will he have another look at the categories of disabled people to include the most severely disabled who are registered with the Department of Employment?

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. The help which we have given has been targeted as best we can within the confines of the legislation and the powers available to us. Many people in the categories that my hon. Friend defined will be helped, but I should be irresponsible if I were to promise to go further in this settlement.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the extra money that he makes

available. He is entirely right to direct it at those who have had the largest increase in their payments to local government. However, I wish that I could be so congratulatory about his announcement about the SSAs. I understand the difficulty that he faces for the current year. Does he accept, however, that the present formula creates considerable injustices and discrepancies between authorities? It cannot be right that there is a difference of over 25 per cent. in the SSAs for the Hambleton and Ryedale districts in my constituency, yet, by any practical judgment, their needs are precisely the same.

Mr. Heseltine: I know how my hon. Friend feels on this matter. He has talked at length to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment. If I represented his constituents, I should probably argue his case. If he sat in my seat, he would know that the one characteristic of all SSAs is that all local authorities feel that SSAs disadvantage them and they believe that they should be adjusted, usually to give more benefit to the local authority arguing the case.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the thousands of people who live in small terraced houses in my constituency and who feel that they were cheated by the previous transitional arrangements. My question concerns the payment of aggregate external finance funding. My right hon. Friend's Department recently produced a scheme to end-load rather than front-load the payment of this money to councils. Although it has been modified, it still has a distinct disadvantage, particularly for those efficient councils that collect their community charge. Will my right hon. Friend look again at that point?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot look at that matter again in the year to come. I recognise that there has been a change which local authorities will not find as comfortable as they would have liked because the scheme that we introduced for the present year was more generous, to reflect the fact that this was a transitional year. We have now reverted to a more orthodox distribution pattern. Of course, local authorities or my hon. Friend and other colleagues may make representations, and we can look at the matter in the longer term, but I should be irresponsible if I suggested that I can reopen it for the next settlement.

Mr. James Paice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposed changes to the standard charges announced by his predecessor will remain? That will end the blatant exploitation of the standard charge system by many local authorities. Will he look again at the de minimis rule for the smaller authorities with regard to charge capping? Many have been among the worst in terms of increasing their expenditure but, because their expenditure is less than £15 million, they are escaping his capping powers.

Mr. Heseltine: I am afraid that I must disappoint my hon. Friend on his latter point about the de minimis rule. I cannot keep open the settlement with which we are now dealing. I am fully aware of this flexibility in the present arrangements, but expenditure by the authorities concerned amounts to only 15 per cent. of total local government expenditure. We decided that we would leave that outside the rigours of the capping regime. Many of the councillors concerned are up for election this year. I hope that those who want to deliver the best value for money


will have a clear regard for those people on whose votes their re-election is determined. I can confirm that the SSA arrangements which we have made will be those that are in place for this settlement.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement does not release local authorities from their duty to restrain their spending and ensure that this year's community charge is collected? In both respects, the local authorities in my constituency have a sound record. Should not my right hon. Friend be congratulated on the way in which he has sensibly targeted the extra money which he obtained for this year, but is he aware from questions asked by several of my hon. Friends that there is ample scope for further reform in the SSA system and in the structure and incidence of the community charge?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for reform in the system of local government finance. I have never known a period in British history when there was not scope for reform. It exists as much today as in the past. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the duty to collect and the duty to contain expenditure.
I referred to the 18 million people who will receive benefit under the new regime. It is fair to say that a significant number of people will not receive benefit and therefore will have to face any unnecessarily large increases in the community charge that authorities decide to impose. I dare say that those people will decide to react with whatever force they can in the circumstances.

Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for the assistance that he has targeted towards those on transitional relief, putting it on a factual basis? Does he accept that there is a continuing feeling among shire districts that the settlement has been skewed against them once more? For example, in Bromsgrove, the settlement reduction this year offsets the reduction in the safety net contribution. The position is made worse for Conservative council candidates by the publication, yet again, of a purely notional figure in annexe B which cannot be achieved.

Mr. Heseltine: In his observations, my hon. Friend may want to take into account the fact that the shire districts have the highest increase in standard spending assessment as a result of these proposals. If one introduces a safety net temporarily and then phases it out, there will be consequences. The alternative is to leave it there and, therefore, to leave in place an anomaly in the system which was never intended.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am one of the few hon. Members of this House who do not have a GCE in mathematics, so I ask my hon. Friend for help. Can he confirm that my figures are right? Will a couple in Hyndburn, who paid rates of £180 two years ago and have this year paid £630 in community charge, pay next year under the settlement £404 in total, even if the county council does as it has threatened and increases the community charge to £400 a head? If that is so, that is good news and will be welcomed by the people in Hyndburn.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not put my signature to his calculations. However, in using a broad brush, he must be in the right ball-park.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: In briefing himself on the facts of the community charges levied this year, has my right hon. Friend noted that if one strips out the pluses and minuses of the safety net, and the levies and contributions that individuals have paid, which distort the relative community charges between councils, one will find that there is a difference of £107 between the community charge levied by the average Labour council and that levied by the average Conservative council?

Mr. Heseltine: As so often, my hon. Friend is ahead of the field. He seems to be striking a chord that is not far away from the figures that I should expect to hear. It is one of those curiosities that I have in front of me the figure for Conservative counties and districts, and for those with a combination of control, which, after taking away the safety net, is £317 on average. The equivalent figure for Labour is £408.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the improved community charge scheme which will give assistance to those who live in houses with a low rateable value, especially in areas such as mine in which the district council insists on spending 35 per cent. above its SSA. However, may I raise the problem of people who live in permanent caravans on what are primarily non-residential caravan sites, where it is difficult to calculate the rateable value? Under the present scheme, they do not receive transitional allowance. They are entitled to the allowance by virtue of their income, but the problem is that they live in a primarily non-residential caravan scheme and do not, therefore, receive the transitional allowance.

Mr. Heseltine: Frankly, I do not have the answer to my hon. Friend's question, but I will write to him with the details.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the second time today on which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has risen at the end. If he has a question, I will call him, although I said that I would bring the questions to an end at 6 pm. I do not know whether he heard me.

Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am quite willing to sit to the end and not to rise every time so that others may get in first. I see nothing wrong with that.
Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are few Ministers who could take office and, within seven weeks, get £1·2 billion out of the Treasury? That is a remarkable achievement. How can my right hon. Friend ensure that local authorities will not use the extra benefit—which will go, supposedly, to the poll tax payer—to increase their own spending? That is the great worry and I am not reassured by what my right hon. Friend said that that will not happen.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's first observations, although I am not sure that they will be welcomed in all parts of the Government. If we think about our announcement today, we realise that the money is going to individuals and is not directed to helping levels of expenditure. For far and away the bulk of authorities,


the levels of expenditure are subject to the capping regimes which will not be affected by the new grants that we have described today.

Mr. David Blunkett: If a Labour Secretary of State had made the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman has made this afternoon, which involves gerrymandering poll tax bills to save seats, there would have been an outcry from the press and from the Tory party. The money, which is welcome, should be used to meet need and to protect services.
I hope that the Secretary of State can confirm that total standard spending will be up by only 7·1 per cent.—TSS is crucial for the year-on-year comparison. From where is the new money coming? Is it coming from inside the Department and from cuts elsewhere, in the light of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a week last Sunday about public expenditure curtailment, or is it coming from other departmental cuts in other budgets? In the statement, it was said that the revenue support grant will remain at 1·9 per cent. up. The statement is not about revenue support; it is a smokescreen for the failure of the poll tax.
I have two simple questions for the Secretary of State. First, would not it be cheaper to bring back the rates rather than to try to compare poll tax bills with the rates and then to find extra money to try to bring them into a comparative position? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the scheme announced this afternoon? What is the basis of the new scheme? Will he confirm that his statement about 18 million beneficiaries may turn out to be nonsense, not simply because anyone who moves—the Audit Commission says that 40 per cent. of people in inner-city areas move in any one year—will no longer be entitled to the relief, but because we need to

know whether the Secretary of State has invented a new notional poll tax? Is he inventing a new notional figure by which he will compare the old rates with his new figure? Is not it a fact that if authorities exceed that new notional figure—which we have yet to see—individuals will be disqualified from entitlement to the full relief that has been announced today?

Mr. Heseltine: There is no point in trying to argue with the hon. Gentleman about whether we substitute a wholly different system for the community charge this year. He and I know that those options are not within the wildest dreams of parliamentary possibility. The only issue is what we should do about the settlement this year, which we have explained.
The House will have understood clearly what I announced in my new regime. It is clear that people who live in houses that were of low rateable value will take the figures that they paid under the last year of the rates as the base point. They will receive a relief which will limit their maximum payment to £104—£2 a week more. They will then add the difference between this year's community charge and next year's community charge, which will be the maximum that they can pay. In other words, the basis of the relief scheme focuses on the actual level of the community charge in the current year.

Mr. Gould: The notional level.

Mr. Heseltine: No, it focuses on the actual charge this year—not on the charge that will be set—when compared with the last year of the rates as adjusted for the safety net. In that case, one will find that a significant number of people will get a grant to reduce the level of community charge that they pay next year as a consequence of what we have introduced. The best advice that is available to me is that something in the ball-park of 18 million people will be beneficiaries from what I have announced today.

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement setting out my decisions on local government finance in Wales for 1991–92.
Before I do so, I want to pay a tribute to the late hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman). He was a long-serving and much-loved Member of the House, and his dedication to his constituency and to the country of Wales generally is well known. For six and a half years he had been Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee and had presided over most of its sittings. I believe that his wise and firm guidance of that Committee's deliberations played a large part in making its sittings both pleasant and effective. He will be greatly missed, and the House will wish to join me in sending sincere condolences to his widow and children.
As the House is already aware, the Government are undertaking a thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the community charge. In Wales, I have already had a very useful meeting with Welsh local authority associations, and I look forward to further discussions on these matters, including consultations with the Opposition parties in coming weeks. I have also looked at changes which can be made in the next financial year, and my statement today will explain my decisions.
The three reports that set out the final terms of the settlement will be laid before the House next Monday. I have today placed details of the settlement in the Library and I have arranged for essential data to be sent to every local authority in Wales.
The settlement allows for a level of total standard spending by Welsh authorities of £2,433 million—an increase of 14·9 per cent. on last year's figure and an increase of 8 per cent. on the aggregate of Welsh local authority budgets in 1990–91. Aggregate external finance in support of that level of spending will be £1,936·1 million —an increase of 11·2 per cent., or £196 million. Within that, the total of revenue support grant is £1,236·5 million, the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account is £525 million, and the total of specific grants within the AEF settlement is £174·6 million.
The settlement is an excellent one for Welsh local authorities. The increase in total standard spending means that local authorities in Wales are set to spend on average more than £1,100 for each and every Welsh charge payer in 1991–92 and gives authorities every opportunity to maintain services and to develop them where appropriate. It provides an increase of 8 per cent. on budgets for the current year—which were set too high—which is 2 per cent. ahead of the level of inflation forecast for 1991–92. In addition, efficiency savings, including those identified by the Audit Commission, can release additional resources for service development and can also result in an improved delivery of services. I commend to the House the work of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts and individual councils. The work that they have done to achieve the savings and better value for money is to be applauded.
Charge payers will expect their councils to set their budgets and community charges in line with the settlement. They know that expenditure increases that exceed this will mean higher charges than necessary.

Similarly, charge payers will expect those councils whose spending falls below their standard spending assessment not to increase their spending by more than the amount for which I have allowed.
I must now explain to the House the implications of the settlement for Welsh charge payers. I am pleased to say that, for two reasons, Welsh charge payers will particularly benefit. First, it is good news for Welsh charge payers, because it means that the community charge for standard spending in 1991–92 will be £228—£4 less than the average charge in Wales in 1990–91. That is eminently achievable and means that, where authorities spend in line with the settlement, 80 per cent. of the cost of local authority services will be met by external finance and only 20 per cent. by Welsh charge payers. However, that figure of 20 per cent. takes no account of reductions in community charges made possible by direct Government assistance to charge payers.
The second reason why this is an excellent settlement for Welsh charge payers is that I am able today to announce a new community charge reduction scheme in Wales and a substantial increase in the sum available for reducing charges. For 1991–92, the amount available will increase from £20 million under the old transitional relief scheme to £62 million under the new scheme. Reductions in charges will benefit directly the residents of specified community areas and will be calculated by reference to the actual community charges set in 1990–91, rather than the notional charges used under the old transitional relief scheme.
The effect of that, together with the substantial additional resources that I am making available, will be significantly to increase the amount of help available to those who received help this year, and also to reduce the charges of the residents of many communities who received no relief this year. In overall terms, I expect the number of charge payers benefiting from reduced charges under the scheme to increase from 750,000 in 1990–91 to 1·4 million in 1991–92. In other words, 67 per cent. of Welsh charge payers, or two in every three, will receive assistance with their charges next year.
The average charge in Wales after the reductions should be about £200, and there is in addition community charge benefit to provide further assistance for those who qualify. When benefits and the new community charge reduction scheme are taken into account, Welsh charge payers should meet no more than 15 per cent. of the cost of local government services—provided always that authorities spend in line with my plans. It is of the greatest importance that this additional help from the Government should go to the benefit of charge payers, and should not be used as a cloak for higher spending.
Let me deal now with non-domestic rates. The rates contribution that Welsh businesses will make towards the cost of local government will be increased by the September retail prices index. I propose to set the multiplier—the Welsh poundage—at 40·8 this year, an increase of 10·9 per cent., as in England. Thus, Welsh businesses should again meet only about 20 per cent. of the cost of local government services in Wales.
My announcement is about revenue spending by Welsh local authorities in 1991–92, but I should inform the House that I also propose to increase the level of support for capital investment by £18 million and I shall announce my proposals on the distribution of these additional resources shortly.
Welsh local authorities are now considering their budgets for 1991–92. I have listened to the representations of the Welsh local authority associations, and have decided not to announce criteria now for community charge capping. But I have also made absolutely clear to every local authority in Wales that, if they budget excessively, they must expect me to act to protect the interests of their charge payers. It is of particular importance that councils do not regard my announcement today as an excuse for additional spending. Welsh charge payers and I will expect authorities to set charges which enable charge payers fully to enjoy the additional assistance that I have announced.
This is an excellent settlement, and charge payers have every reason to expect their councils to set their budgets and community charges in line with it. They should expect to receive community charge bills that reflect the full benefit of the additional resources that I have provided and to pay an average community charge of around £200. I commend the settlement to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: We shall miss the strong and honest voice of the late Donald Coleman. All of us appreciated the sincere remarks of the Secretary of State about our late colleague, who was a magnificent Member of Parliament. Only very recently, he was seen guarding his constituents' interests vigorously and well in the Chamber. Everyone will agree that Donald Coleman loved the town of Neath, its hinterland and its valley. He wished only to make a better life for his constituents, and we were witness to his fine attempts to do that. Neath could have had no better Member of Parliament.
Turning to the community charge reduction scheme —for that is what it is now called—if the unjust poll tax must remain in Wales, I broadly welcome the improvements. Will the new scheme now operate all over Wales? I emphasise that, at present, many communities do not share in transitional relief. For example, will any community in Alyn and Deeside receive benefit from the scheme? At present, no community does. The Secretary of State is merely tinkering. It is only a minor change. The only reform would be abolition.
The Secretary of State made a reference to charge capping. He tries to skirt the issue. Does he intend to apply caps? If so, why does not he announce the criteria? He could confirm now that the English criteria would be used. On the eve of the match, I may as well tell him that he is kicking for touch. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking local authorities to make the choice between cutting services and being capped? Surely he cannot be asking for teacher redundancies. Surely he does not seriously propose any implication of, say, the closure of rural schools.
Can the Secretary of State explain a paradox in his statement? At the beginning, he praised local authorities for their efforts to improve efficiency, yet he finished by accusing them of profligacy and waste. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name one local authority in Wales which has acted irresponsibly.
On capital announcements, does the Secretary of State realise that, for the Welsh districts, capital expenditure is an absolute disaster? I put it to him that, compared to the average for the past three years, investment plans for housing are down in real terms by one quarter. The shortfall is £75 million. Consequently, the extra and

welcome £18 million of which he boasts must be insufficient, bearing in mind homelessness and the housing crisis throughout Wales.
Will the Secretary of State identify for us in the House tonight the precise cash provided for care in the community? He boasts of extra capital. Is it earmarked for community care? I want to give him a warning. Will not the increase in the business rate above the rate of inflation add to the problems of business in Wales in the increasingly serious recession?
The statement is basically all about the poll tax. When Wales has a new Government, Labour will abolish the poll tax. We say that the poll tax must be abolished. It is unjust and it is despised throughout Wales.

Mr. Hunt: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's peroration in a moment. First, I am grateful for his broad welcome of the new scheme that I have announced this evening. Secondly, on the coverage of the community charge reduction scheme, 67 per cent. of Welsh charge payers in over 600 communities out of 865 will benefit. In 1991, 35 per cent. of charge payers are covered in 320 communities. I may attract some criticism from behind me now, because I can reveal that, whereas no communities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Alyn and Deeside have benefited until now, under the changes that I have announced today, nine of his communities will benefit, and the average reduction in community charge bills will be £24.

Mr.Barry Jones: I thank the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying, "Thank you," so gracefully.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was that the announcement is only a minor change. More than trebling the amount from £20 million to £62 million can hardly be described as a minor change.
The hon. Gentleman's fourth point was that I was kicking for touch. He drew a shady analogy with an important match that will take place on Saturday. I do not expect our side—the great Welsh Rugby Union side—to be kicking for touch on Saturday. It will be kicking for goal and scoring tries. I rest on what I have said already about charge capping.
The hon. Gentleman's next point was that I had accused local authorities of profligacy and waste. If he reads Hansard carefully, he will see that I did not use those words. I paid tribute to local authorities in Wales for the enthusiastic way in which they embraced the efficiency initiative and continue to do so. However, I said that I felt that their spending plans this year were too high. I hope that they can contain their spending plans within the limits of what I believe to be a good settlement.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has looked at the overall figures on capital. I announced that assumed growth expenditure would increase to £528 million capital, an increase of £53 million, or 11·2 per cent., over 1990–91. It is a good package, which will enable local authorities to bring forward significant capital investment. It is a total investment of almost £240 per adult in 1991–92, whereas it was £200 in 1990–91 and £156 in England. He really should look at the overall figures.
We have made it clear that we recognise that some are disappointed that we had to delay community care. However, we are preparing actively. In many areas, the


Welsh Office is pioneering with local authorities a great many new initiatives in community care. We are preparing for community care.
The hon. Gentleman's eighth point was about businesses. I merely confirmed the previous provisional announcement. The increase of 10·9 per cent. is exactly the same as the increase in England.
I shall now deal with the hon. Gentleman's peroration. He said that we should abolish the community charge or poll tax. I wish that we could engage in constructive, positive discussions about what should take place under our present review of the community charge. If I recall correctly, the Labour party has come forward with 60 separate schemes to replace the community charge in the past few years. I should like the opportunity to discuss just one with them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back:-Bench Members, I remind them that there will be a debate on this matter. I ask them to keep their questions reasonably brief.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I echo the tribute paid to our late colleague, Donald Coleman. It is difficult for any of us to envisage the Welsh Grand Committee without his chairmanship.
In so far as this miserable system can be improved, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment have gone a long way to improving it. There must be something rather screwy about a system of local government finance in which two thirds of those liable to pay receive some rebate. However, a great many community charge payers in my constituency will live to bless what my right hon. Friends have achieved.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales makes the same deduction as I do from the Labour party's constant half-promises that it will abolish the poll tax. I take that as a clear sign that it has given up all hope of winning the next general election. It knows perfectly well that, if it came to power, it would take a long time to put an alternative system of local government finance in place.
My right hon. Friend was wise not to give any criteria for capping. There is no reason to anticipate that there will be any capping of local authorities in Wales if they continue to respond as they have to the leadership of my right hon. Friend. Does the settlement include any provision for the cost of the Towyn floods and its impact on community charge payers in Colwyn in the next financial year?

Mr. Hunt: 1 thank my hon. Friend for some of the points which he has made. I certainly intend that the review which we are conducting should be thorough and wide-ranging. As my right hon. Friend has said many times, we are prepared to consider the wide spectrum without preconditions. I also thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the new scheme. To cover 67 per cent. is a substantial increase, and it will mean that 13 of his communities will benefit, with average relief of £25 per community charge payer.
If I may jump to the point which my hon. Friend made about Towyn, as he knows, I have on several occasions visited the area. We have announced a number of schemes which we believe will be of positive help to the

communities there, particularly when we are taking the important step of looking to the longer-term enhancement of security for flood protection and to the revival of the communities. I know my hon. Friend's views. What we have announced is by no means the end of the picture.

Mr. Alex Carlile: May I add my tribute to those already given to Donald Coleman, the late Member for Neath? He was a man hewn from a rich seam of warmth, kindness, strength and determination, and we shall miss him.
While we must welcome any mitigation of the rigours of the poll tax, is it not right that the reductions referred to in the statement depend upon a bizarre difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and most of the public in Wales? For these reductions to take place, is it not inevitable that local authorities will be forced to close village schools, to hand over public sector retirement homes to the private secctor where they will be less well run, and to put off schemes which would enable those coming into community care to be properly looked after by the social services?
Having said that, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's offer to consult the other political parties on the review of the poll tax. If he is persuaded that it would be fairer to have in Wales a tax based on ability to pay, like local income tax, which is the only scheme which my party has put forward over a quarter of a century, will we have that scheme in Wales even if his colleague in England does not agree?

Mr. Hunt: Montgomeryshire will get a 15·7 per cent. increase in its standard spending assessment in the settlement announced today. In Powys, the increase is 12·9 per cent. We believe that the increases should be more than enough to accommodate the priorities in any local authority spending plans. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's area of Montgomeryshire, 35 out of 45 communities will receive help under the new scheme, and the average payment will be £14 per recipient.
The hon. and learned Gentleman kindly referred to consultation. I look forward to hearing from him. I am not prepared to say now what my conclusions will be when I have not yet had the welcome opportunity of listening to him.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and I note that he estimates that next year's community charge will be as low as £228. My constituents in Cardiff, North have been the hardest hit in Wales by the two local left-wing councils setting community charges of almost £100 more than necessary. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those constituents deserve a reduction because of the way in which they have been treated? Even though he has not yet set the criteria for capping, may I look forward to him being tougher than his predecessor on those councils?

Mr. Hunt: The standard spending assessment for Cardiff will increase by 22·3 per cent. I believe that that is fair. As my hon. Friend will know, in Wales the distribution of the settlement is approved by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. That is a great asset in Wales, and I shall never cease to pay tribute to the local authorities which enabled us to bring it about. Within the overall distribution, Cardiff will get a 22·3 per cent. increase and South Glamorgan will get 13·2


per cent. I hope that the new scheme will be welcomed in Cardiff. Under the existing transitional relief scheme, two communities benefit; under the new scheme, 17 communities will benefit, with an average reduction of £41 per person in the next financial year. As to capping, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the enormous burden faced by Swansea city council because of the need to demolish and rebuild about 900 PRC houses in Portmead, Blaenymaes and Clase. Given that the fault does not lie with the city council, is wholly unprecedented and will have great repercussions on its budget, will the Secretary of State undertake to consider sympathetically providing additional finance for the city council?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman knows what we have already said about this. Swansea has had a fair allocation of resources. It is for the city council to set its own priorities. I have always said that I look forward to meeting Swansea city council on some occasion; no doubt it will consider what points it wishes to raise with me.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I acknowlege the additional assistance which my right hon. Friend has gained for community charge payers in Wales, but does he agree that it is totally illogical that we should have a different transitional relief system in Wales from that in England? Does he agree that the system in England is fairer because it focuses help on individuals rather than on giving blanket assistance to everyone within a council area?

Mr. Hunt: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said in his complaints on behalf of his constituents over the application of the transitional relief scheme in Wales. I hope that his constituents will recognise that he has played a part in the way in which I have extended the scheme. Whereas three communities in his constituency benefit this year, that number will rise to 17 in the next financial year, the average reduction being £26.
My hon. Friend has constantly maintained that we should have the English system in Wales. The circumstances are not appropriate for the operation of the English scheme in Wales. The Welsh scheme was introduced after full consultation and with support originally from the local authorities because it is such a simple system. Whereas the English system is very complicated, as I know well, with a substantial amount paid in administration, the Welsh scheme has the beauty of feeding help straight through to the community charge payer with very little administrative cost.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I associate myself and my party with the remarks on the late Donald Coleman? We send our condolences to his widow and family. He made a great contribution to the House, to politics in Wales and to the work in his constituency.
The Secretary of State should be made aware that Gwynedd county council takes very little comfort from his statement today, because it has made an assessment that, based on the provisional figures that he has already announced, it will need to increase its poll tax by £40 in the county alone next year in order to maintain a standstill

budget. The increase which he has announced is not on the actual budget for this year but on the notional budget that he set for the council.
The problem is that, in order simply to maintain services, the council will have to raise the poll tax by £40. Will the Secretary of State respond to that? Will he also acknowledge that, if the council has to do that, the blame will not lie with Gwynedd or any of the districts but with the Welsh Office?
We also welcome the talks that will lead to the abolition of the poll tax in Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any faith in that tax in the long term?

Mr. Hunt: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's last question, but I believe that he was asking me to give the conclusions of the review before he and his colleagues have had a chance to see me. I do not believe that that would be right. I look forward to the discussions we shall have of their views on the future of local government finance. I should also welcome any of their comments about local government structure and functions.
I strongly believe that the increase of 8 per cent. over actual budgets—we are not talking about notional budgets—is a good settlement, despite the hon. Gentleman's attempts to throw it into doubt. In England, the increase is almost 1 per cent. lower. My announcement is not only a recognition of the more responsible local government spending that we have had in Wales, but an incentive to all local authorities to spend sensibly and to do so within the settlement I have announced.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has admitted today that the Government have had to rectify the errors they made with the community charge when they got the balance wrong to start with between gainers and losers. Does he intend to improve things further by increasing to 100 per cent. the percentage of community charge payers who will gain? If he did so, he would be unique in the annals of economics for introducing a system in which there were no losers but only gainers.

Mr. Hunt: I do not think that anyone, not even the Labour party, could bring in a system in which all were gainers. We must have a system of local government finance in which the settlement fairly reflects the spending needs of localities and local authorities, while spreading the burden in a proper way. That is why I greatly welcome the signs from the Welsh nationalist party and the Liberal Democrats of their willingness to discuss the future of local government finance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with all his influence in his party, will recommend the same course of action.

Mr. Win Griffiths: In common with other hon. Members, I welcome the fact that the Government are putting more money into local government finance, if only to sweeten the bitter pill of injustice caused by the introduction of the poll tax.
In this year's settlement, the Secretary of State has increased the number of communities that will benefit from the transitional relief scheme. Nevertheless, does he recognise that there are still many disabled people who will suffer unfairly because of the way in which the poll tax operates and because they do not live in those communities that now stand to benefit? I have sent a


detailed letter about this today to the right hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to a brief reply now and a more detailed one later.

Mr. Hunt: I have not yet seen the hon. Gentleman's letter, so I hope that he will allow me to consider it carefully; then perhaps we can have a word about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has advocated the English scheme and I recognise that we would then be able to select specific groups of people and individuals for benefit. However, the administrative costs of that would he considerable; that is why we have decided to keep the fundamental basis of the old transitional relief scheme—we are continuing it under the community charge reduction scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, by more than trebling the amount of benefit, we are giving real relief to Welsh community charge payers for next year. I am grateful for the welcome that that has received from both sides of the House.

Mr. John P. Smith: I also pay tribute to Donald Coleman, who was loved and respected not only by his constituents who he represented so well for 25 years, but by the people of Barry in my constituency, which was his home town.
As a result of this afternoon's statement, will the Vale of Glamorgan borough council be able to reverse its decision of last week not to provide planned and much-needed accommodation for homeless families in the area? The number of homeless has doubled while the right hon. Gentleman's Government have been in office.

Mr. Hunt: I recognise and endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about our late colleague.
The Vale of Glamorgan will receive a 17·1 per cent. increase in its SSA, which should be more than enough to cope with all reasonable expenditure damands. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the announcements that we have already made for special allocations for the homeless. I recognise that we have a problem, particularly in the city of Cardiff, which requires remedies, many of which we have already announced.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the scale of reliefs that he has been forced to announce today is a confession of the hardship that he and his Government have imposed on the Welsh people in the past 12 months? Does he also recognise that calling a budget increase of 2 per cent. over inflation generous fails to recognise the cost structure of local authorities? At best, the right hon. Gentleman has made a standstill announcement, but it is not even that when one considers the problems of homelessness and care in the community. The right hon. Gentleman has also announced that the business rate will increase at double the projected rate of inflation. Surely he appreciates that, at a time when bankruptcies are soaring in Wales, that announcement is the death sentence for many small businesses.

Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that. The announcement—it had already been made on a provisional basis, but I confirmed it today—will not produce that effect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his words. I hope that he will recognise that, given its ingredients, this is a fair settlement.
On occasion, the Labour party has criticised us for failing to increase the revenue support grant under the new system. Today's announcement will mean that the revenue support grant will rise by 2·8 per cent. in real terms between 1990–91 and 1991–92. The right hon. Gentleman played a part in the previous Labour Government, and in their final three years of office there was a reduction of 4 per cent., 8 per cent., and 4 per cent. respectively in rate support grant.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State now accept that the people of Wales are thoroughly fed up with his poll tax, which has operated for the past two years?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he is ruling nothing out and ruling nothing in. Therefore, does he regret the statements of the past 12 months that have poured scorn on the Labour party's fair rating system? Many of his right hon. and hon. Friends believe that that is a proper alternative to his poll tax. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants the Labour party to engage in talks with him about a new local government financial system, he should be aware that we shall do so on the basis of two conditions. First, the poll tax should be abolished and, secondly, a finely worked out rating system, which the Labour party has agreed to, should be the basis for a new local government financial system.

Mr. Hunt: I really wish that the hon. Gentleman would live in the real world. He seeks to set preconditions for consultations that have already been welcomed by the Welsh nationalist party and the Liberal Democrats. I wish that he would follow their approach.

Mr. Alun Michael: Who brought the poll tax in?

Mr. Hunt: It is no good trying to shout me down. I have already said that I am willing to enter into discussions, and that my precondition is to rule nothing in and to rule nothing out. If that is not a fair basis on which to have a grown-up discussion, I do not know what is. The sooner the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) reconsiders the whole position, the better. When he criticises me for having poured scorn on previous schemes put forward by the Labour party, I hope that he will sympathise with me, because almost every time we had a debate, the Labour party put forward a different scheme. I am still catching up with its last announcement. It would be far better for Labour Members to come to see me without preconditions and get the best possible deal for the people of Wales.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Scottish local government finance.
In the context of the additional Government expenditure which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has just announced, I have secured for Scotland the full formula consequential resources. Those amount to £140 million and I propose to make the following increases in expenditure in local government.
First, I shall introduce in Scotland in April, in succession to the transitional relief scheme, a new community charge reduction scheme, payable on a similar basis to that adopted by my right hon. Friend, but allowing for the earlier introduction of the community charge in Scotland from 1989. The new scheme will be effective in Scotland from 1 April 1990. In the calculation of the amounts of relief payable I shall substitute the actual community charge level that was payable in 1989–90 for the assumed charges that have previously applied. That, together with the changes that we have already made to the scheme, will give substantial benefits to many of those who had to face the biggest increase in burdens at the time of the transition from domestic rates. It will cost an estimated further £65 million next year, with more than I million charge payers benefiting.
Secondly, I shall increase the contribution I make to reducing business rates in Scotland. The House knows of the very large excess burden that is faced by Scottish businesses and in my recent announcement on business rates I expressed the wish that more could be done this year. Now I am able to say that I can do more. I propose to take a substantial further step immediately by increasing my contribution in 1991–92 from the £58 million just announced to £100 million. That comes on top of the £80 million reduction which I have secured in the current year, and will mean an average 8·6 per cent. reduction in business rate bills below what they otherwise would have been. I shall announce the detailed poundages as soon as possible. I can, however, say that the level of industrial derating will be reduced to 30 per cent.
Thirdly, I propose to use the balance of £33 million to assist capital programmes. In the public expenditure settlement I announced last month, £25 million was transferred from the resources I had available for my block programmes to help with revenue support grant and therefore benefit community charge payers. As a result, local authority capital programmes have been hard pressed. I am glad therefore to be able to strengthen those resources in this announcement. I shall announce details in due course.
The package which I have announced today is a very substantial one and will give considerable benefits to community charge payers, to business ratepayers and to local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Any form of relief is welcome. However, there is an atmosphere of muddle and dither, make and mend, about today's announcement. The impression is that the Secretary of State is being dragged along by his English counterpart and the drive for reform is being fuelled by electoral fear.
I welcome wholeheartedly the decision to base calculations for the community charge reduction scheme on actual poll tax figures in the relevant year. Does the Secretary of State remember that the Opposition have demanded such change month after month, year by year, and met with a prejudiced refusal on the ground that to abandon the make believe of notional figures would be to endorse excessive expenditure? The about-turn is mightily overdue. Why did it take so long?
Will it still be true that almost no one between the ages of 18 and 60 who has not previously been a ratepayer will benefit from the new scheme? Will people who have changed their addresses since 1989–90, and who are disqualified under the transitional relief scheme for that reason, benefit from the new arrangements? Has the Secretary of State discussed the appalling administrative complexities of what is, in effect, mark 3 of the transitional relief scheme with the unfortunate local authorities and does the cost include their administrative charges? As he knows, no applicant can be in receipt of both transitional relief and housing benefit. If someone qualifies for transitional relief, his housing benefit will be reduced accordingly. Will that apply to the new scheme, and, if so, what is the net cost to the scheme after allowing for savings from housing benefit?
Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a healthy and understandable cynicism about his claim that the new scheme is worth an additional £65 million? Does he remember his predecessor's proud boast that transitional relief for 1989–90 would be worth £30 million to the poll tax payer when, at the end of the day, only £10 million was dispersed?
Did not the Secretary of State consider taking the recipients of income support out of the poll tax system? They are, after all, the most financially vulnerable groups in our community. At a cost of just over £40 million, the Secretary of State could have abolished many of the administrative problems that have bedevilled the scheme.
I am astonished by the speed of the Secretary of State's retreat on the business rates. Only on Tuesday he announced a £58 million subvention and now, on Thursday, that is being increased to £100 million. Would it not be good to think that the hard-pressed poll tax payer could look forward to the same speed of response? While the Secretary of State may have got the full formula consequential resources, in England the total sum has gone to help the poll tax payer, but in Scotland it has been split three ways. Will he confirm that if the £140 million had been committed exclusively to the poll tax, individual bills in the coming year would have been reduced, on average, by £40?
I am anything but impressed by the capital programme. Will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that the £33 million to which he referred is borrowing consent, not cash? Is it not true that the total capital allocation in 1990–91 was £457 million—I hope that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) knew that—and the provisional figure, which is all we have had, for 1991–92, at £468 million, represents a substantial cut in real terms? There is, in effect, a good deal of sleight of hand here, and the truth is that the resources will still be cruelly inadequate.
As all hon. Members know, poll tax payers will face substantial increases next year because of Government policy. Today's desperate juggling with the figures does


not remove the fact that it is an unjust system that ought to go. What is required, and what Scotland would like, is a community charge abolition scheme.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) began his comments by referring to muddle and dither. I can only assume that he had in mind the 60 or more different variations that the Labour party advanced for funding local government, culminating in the absurdity of the roof tax. However, I am grateful for the welcome he gave our decision to base the scheme on actual, rather than notional, figures, which will be welcome now, particularly in the context of the anticipated increases being considered by many local authorities. Such increases are unwise and unnecessary, given the generous settlement of 10·4 per cent. announced for next year, when inflation is anticipated to be 6 per cent. or less. Basing the scheme on actual figures will be welcomed by hard-pressed community charge payers, to whom the benefits of the scheme will flow. The elderly and those eligible for qualification above the £104 figure will benefit from the elimination of the difference between the notional and actual levels as a result of the new scheme.
As for discussions with local authorities, the scheme has been announced at short notice. My officials are in touch with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We are interested in discussing the implications with them and have made it clear that we will pay reasonable administrative costs.
Housing benefit savings are essentially a matter for the Department of Social Security, which I am sure will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's specific questions.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about the cost estimate. We have the experience of the original transitional relief scheme and the enhanced scheme. Therefore, in estimating an increase in the number of beneficiaries from 550,000 under the enhanced scheme to more than 1 million under this scheme, we are speaking on a more authoritative basis.
Far from our having executed a retreat on business rates, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I regard what we have done as a major advance. It is the Government who at long last have tackled the problems and unfairnesses faced by businesses in Scotland as a result of the high spending policies of local authorities there under which businesses were chiefly regarded as a milch cow. We have dealt with that problem and stopped the increases taking place. Year by year we are bringing in new resources to bring down the business rate in Scotland to come in line with the uniform business rate south of the border. That will be widely welcomed in Scotland.
As for the quick increase on the figure that I recently announced for business rates, of course the increase has been announced because new resources have been made available. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Garscadden would have given the same priority to businesses. I believe that the three components of this package will be widely welcomed in Scotland and will be of great benefit to community charge payers, local authorities and businesses.

Mr. David Lambie: I am afraid that I cannot congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement tonight. The people of Scotland will be

angry that he has not proposed the abolition of the poll tax. We have suffered it a year longer than have the English and we want it abolished.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Cunninghame district council has been in correspondence with the Scottish Office and drawn its attention to the financial problems that the council faces fixing its poll tax following the successful appeal by a large chemical installation against the level set in the last two property revaluations in Scotland? Will he confirm that Cunninghame district council will be compensated for its loss of income under this announcement? If not, will he be prepared to meet a deputation consisting of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and me to discuss this matter before a final decision is taken? He refused to do so last time.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman complains about the fact that the community charge has been in force in Scotland for a year longer than south of the border, forgetting that we in Scotland have benefited from the abolition of domestic rates for a year longer too. The transitional relief scheme, the enhanced scheme and this community charge reduction scheme will also benefit Scotland—and from a year earlier than south of the border. The hon. Gentleman also knows that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for local government has agreed to meet him and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to discuss this matter.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on the support that he has given to Scottish business. Once again, Scotland is not the guinea pig but the trail blazer.
All the political calls for the abolition of what the Opposition call the poll tax but what is really the community charge are a fraud because of their pretence that if it were abolished no one would have to pay anything. It is socialist authorities that squander the most money and it is fraudulent to pretend that abolishing the community charge would mean ordinary people pay nothing.

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party is keen on spending money, not so keen on clarifying how it intends to raise it. The Opposition should encourage people to pay the community charge, without which local authorities cannot be effectively funded.
I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's remarks supporting the changes for business rate payers. Last year we were able to reduce business rates by 6·25 per cent. and as a result of today's announcement the reduction this year will be another 8·6 per cent. That will be widely welcomed in Scotland and it will benefit the Scottish economy and assist the creation of jobs.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is welcome as far as it goes? Using the device of transitional relief is fraught with difficulties because the scheme has become so complicated as to be unworkable. It would have been much more satisfactory had he considered delivering some relief in the form of an across-the-board reduction or of the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum contribution.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problem facing local authorities in Scotland as a result of the haemorrhage of finance due to non-payment. In the short term they will find that difficult to cope with.
The business rates announcement is the most welcome part of the package. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will manage to do something to reconcile the big differences that still obtain in rate poundages in Scotland, and that he will find some way of helping small businesses within the relief that he has announced.
Some areas in Scotland have suffered swingeing increases in water rates and charges. I hope that there is scope within this statement to deal with that.

Mr. Lang: Water charges are not covered by these provisions.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the business rates reductions that I am introducing. They will benefit small businesses as much as large. The result of applying the percentage reduction across the board will be that high-paying local authority areas will pay less in pounds and pence than low-paying ones. I made it clear in my statement early this week that I would welcome further views and opinions on how to develop the scheme in future.
As for the across-the-board reduction for all community charge payers, we could not be sure that it would not seep into higher expenditure by local authorities. The advantage of this scheme is that resources go directly to community charge payers—a major benefit.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend's statement will be particularly welcome to those who have been on transitional relief, and the new reduction scheme is a good one. The 8·6 per cent. reduction in the business community contribution is also welcome. I also thank him for the positive and constructive way in which he and his colleagues have responded to suggestions on reforming, not abolishing, the community charge. That positive attitude has helped to elicit proposals, including my own, which I hope will be understood one day by those who cannot yet fathom them.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome. Taking into account the previous year during which we restricted the increase in business rates to the rate of inflation, the benefit to Scottish business now amounts to £272 million—a large sum.
I wish that the Labour party would play a more constructive role in the review of the community charge and would help us consider the options so that we can introduce a system that will benefit local authority funding in Scotland and those who contribute to it.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State recall that Conservatives used to say that Governments had no money of their own: they just had other people's money? If that is true, are not the hard pressed poll tax payers facing massive increases next year being bribed with their own money? Is it not true that nothing will prevent councils being caught in a pincer movement between cuts in central funding and the non-payment campaign irresponsibly organised by the Scottish National party? Does the right lion gentleman

realise that my council is faced with the prospect of cutting the fire service and being unable to build a new school at a time when charges for local authority services are rising? How does the statement help with that?

Mr. Lang: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who, along with the rest of his party, continually urges us to contribute more taxpayers' money to local authority funding and then complains when we do. We are doing it in such a way as to benefit those who pay for local authorities, not those who decide on their spending policies.
I can only agree that it is highly irresponsible of any political party to encourage non-payment. Not only does it lead individuals—usually those least able to defend themselves and look after their interests—into financial difficulty and legal trouble; it undermines local authorities' capacity to deliver local services effectively.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State calm himself a little? For those of us who have been—[Interruption.] I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, in response to the assertion made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and you know perfectly well that the assertion that he made and has just repeated is completely false.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear anything.

Mr. Douglas: I know that you did not, Mr. Speaker, but I repeat that that assertion is completely false. I shall try to continue on a serious matter.
Those who have heard the three statements on the poll tax this afternoon will be utterly amazed at the air of unreality that surrounded them. Three Ministers supported the concept of the poll tax and gave the impression that everything was in order when in fact there was almost no support for them among Back Benchers.
Local authority finance is in a parlous state, and the Secretary of State knows it because he has met COSLA. He knows that it is not a case of the Scottish National party organising non-payment. The vast majority of those who are not paying cannot pay, and the reality is that the poll tax should be abolished. The Secretary of State is simply juggling the figures. He is taking money from people on an income-related basis and transferring it to a head tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have questions, please? This is not a debate.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State face reality and consider abolishing the poll tax and replacing it with a local income tax which is related to ability to pay? That is the only solution to the crisis that is facing local authorities.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about an air of unreality. If he wants to look for an air of unreality, he need look no further than his own party and his party colleagues who seem to think that local authority services can continue to be paid for without members of the public contributing to their cost. That is the height of irresponsibility and the height of unreality. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to be taken seriously in debates on this matter when he bases his attitude on such postures.

Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State understand that not least among the many


shortcomings of the poll tax is the fact that it has proved to be uncollectable by the methods which are allowed for in the legislation? Is he aware that Tayside regional council has set up an in-house advice system to give advice to those who genuinely cannot pay without resort to warrant sales and sheriff officers? I understand that that is costing the council about £250,000. Has the right hon. Gentleman made an allowance in the settlement for that expenditure? If not, does that mean that he prefers sheriff officers and warrant sales to the negotiated settlement of outstanding debts?

Mr. Lang: Substantial allowances have been made in the funding of local authorities to take account of the cost of community charge administration. I do not believe that it is as uncollectable as the hon. Gentleman implies. The signs are that the collection of rates will run at something over 90 per cent. of budgeted sums and that local authorities, by adapting their expenditure profiles by a relatively small proportion, need not expect to increase the burden on those who have paid to cover those who have not. But it is important that local authorities use the powers available to them to collect the community charge. Not to do so is in breach of their statutory obligation.

Mr. David Marshall: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the additional help for businesses, but is he aware that the eight constituencies with the highest unemployment in Scotland in December were all in Glasgow, which has only 11 constituencies? When will the right hon. Gentleman give enough money to Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council to enable them to do something to reduce the scandalously high unemployment in the city? When will he realise that Glasgow is a special case requiring special measures?

Mr. Lang: It is the high-spending authorities covering Glasgow that have led to so much unemployment and the loss of so many businesses from Glasgow. I worked for nearly 20 years in Glasgow and I saw businesses driven out of the city by high rates. The rescue that we have mounted will save businesses in Glasgow and throughout Scotland from the depredations of local authorities over the years. No longer will local authorities be able to treat them as they did in the past as an easy source of funds. Now the business community will be protected by the uniform business rate that we are introducing and today is a major step in that direction.

Mr. James Wallace: Since the Government's Green Paper in 1986 on the reform of local government finance there has been a suggestion that special arrangements would be made for businesses in Orkney and Shetland where the oil terminals dominate local government finance. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State's predecessor and other Scottish Office Ministers have reassured me that that is being discussed between Government and council officials. When will some colour be given to those bold proposals made back in 1986?

Mr. Lang: Orkney and Shetland always seem to be a special case on every occasion and in every respect. I shall need to look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. I am sorry that I do not have those facts at my fingertips tonight.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Secretary of State know the percentages that have been collected in Scotland? It is false to say that 90 per cent. has been collected. Up until last month 63 per cent. had not been collected in Strathclyde alone—a total of £285 million. The only way in which the local authorities will be able to compensate for that loss is by cutting the services, for which there has been no provision. The authority is still suffering from last year when £47 million remained uncollected. Obviously the people of Scotland, and in particular the people of Glasgow and Strathclyde, do not want the sort of chicken-feed handout that the Government are offering them. They want a fair system based on the ability to pay. Today's fraudulent statement, dangling a carrot possibly for the next election, is nonsense. The Government have said that they will review it and it is time that they came up with new plans.

Mr. Lang: If anybody is misleading the House on the collection rates, it could be the hon. Gentleman. I am not suggesting that he is; he may have misunderstood the figure that he quoted. The collection rate this year is running at broadly the same level as it was at the same time last year. On the basis of last year's figures, it now seems that the total collected will exceed 90 per cent. of the amounts budgeted. In some parts of Scotland it will be around 95 per cent. or more. Therefore, it is possible to collect the charge and to run local authority budgets without imposing additional budgets next year on those who have contributed their share.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on the business rate, the capital programme and the fact that his figures are based on actual poll tax payment. I also welcome the Secretary of State to the world of reality which he entered like his colleagues earlier, when he called the community charge the poll tax. We welcome that revelation from the Secretary of State. I ask the Secretary of State again if he will consider abolishing the 20 per cent. rule because it costs more to collect than it is worth. The Secretary of State said that he would give details of the capital programme, but before he does so will he specifically consider the allocation of funds for a new high school in Rutherglen?

Mr. Lang: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has started the bidding under the capital component of the announcement. I welcome his thanks for the business rate changes and I am grateful that those are widely welcomed throughout the House. The abolition of the 20 per cent. rule is one factor for consideration in the broader and more fundamental review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I and other colleagues in Government are undertaking. It is not something that we felt able to contemplate tonight. The £140 million package of what the Labour party is pleased to call new money that I have been able to announce tonight will, I believe, be a welcome way of using the resources for the benefit of Scotland.

Mrs. Ray Michie: What will be the consequences to the poll tax payer in Argyll and Bute following the recent severe storms which resulted in extensive damage? I know that the Secretary of State has triggered the Bellwin scheme, and I am grateful for that, but it is a restrictive scheme which is barely worth the


paper that it is written on. Will the Government or the poll tax payer finance the cost of, for example, repairing the extensive damage to sea walls in Rothesay and Dunoon? In addition, many recreation areas vital to the tourist industry have literally disappeared—for example, the Shinty pitch at Tighnabruaich, which is very important to it. Can the Secretary of State give some advice, please?

Mr. Lang: My advice is that those concerned should find a flat field somewhere else and build a new pitch. I appreciate the difficulties that the storms created for some communities, particularly on Bute and on the Ayrshire coast—but in other parts of Scotland as well, including Dumfries and Galloway.
I was glad to be able to trigger the Bellwin scheme at an early date, so that local authorities know that there is a capacity to provide assistance. Once the cost of the measures has been calculated, it will be easier to assess the amount of assistance for which applicants will be eligible. The trigger point is obviously lower in the case of small district councils than in large regions. The scheme exists to help in the event of catastrophe.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Secretary of State expect local authorities to produce long-term or even short-term financial plans when there is such a hotch-potch of revenue support grant settlements? The whole system of local government revenue, including the continued existence of the poll tax, is supposed to be under reveiw—if we are to believe the Prime Minister, who recently reiterated that in respect of the poll tax review, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. When will the Secretary of State get it into his skull that the majority of Scots want to see the poll tax kicked out along with all the Tory politicians—the Secretary of State included—who were responsible for foisting it upon the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: Local authorities' long-term planning need not be affected by my announcement today, because the benefit of the community charge reduction scheme will pass through to community charge payers and will not directly affect local authorities themselves, other than in the administration—and they are already administering the earlier two schemes.
Long-term planning by local authorities would be considerably advanced if Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) set a better example to their constituents and to everyone else in Scotland by paying their own share towards local government finance.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State plan to mitigate the effects of the high water charges that some local authorities will have to introduce due to factors outside their control? It is largely Community directives that lead to those higher charges, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that most people on lower incomes do not receive any particular help in meeting them.

Mr. Lang: Recently, we made changes to water charges in order to create greater transparency, so that the costs incurred by local authorities would relate more closely to the charges made. I am sure that that is a fairer system, though I acknowledge that it produced a substantial

increase for payers in some local authority areas. That system is not directly affected by my announcement. However, when I made my public expenditure statement last December, I announced a substantial increase in capital expenditure on water and sewerage.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As to the economic and other problems that bedevil Inverclyde district council, I hope that when councillor Harry Mulholland and his colleagues meet the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), they will receive a sympathetic hearing.
The Secretary of State mentioned certain poll tax relief provisions. I remind him of the discrepancy between Scottish and English merchant seamen. It is disgraceful that Scottish merchant seamen can find themselves paying the poll tax, whereas their English comrades are given exemption. Why is the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), so unsympathetic to their case, and why are community charge registration officers so unwilling to advise them on their rights of appeal? Incidentally, the appeals procedure in Scotland is much more cumbersome than that which obtains in England. South of the border, such cases are heard by an appeals tribunal, but in Scotland an appellant must apply to the sheriff court. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that that disgraceful state of affairs will come to an end in the near future?

Mr. Lang: It is significant that when arrangements in Scotland are the same as in England, Scottish Opposition Members complain that the Government are not taking account of the special, traditional differences between the two countries—but where differences apply, the same hon. Members argue that they should not exist. The law and the policy are basically the same. It is essentially a matter for the registration officer, and I anticipate that once the scheme has settled down and more examples are available of how registration officers have reacted to certain situations, the hon. Gentleman's complaint will be seen to be unjustified.
The meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred is to take place tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is a sympathetic individual, and I am sure that the delegation will receive a fair hearing.

Mr. George Foulkes: Why has the Secretary of State not given special consideration to Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley district, which has the highest unemployment of any travel-to-work area in mainland Britain and only a small number of firms contributing to the business rate? The right hon. Gentleman should surely give that area special consideration when making his allocations.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his regional allocation will take account of an early start to the A77? In view of the delay in beginning that project, will the right hon. Gentleman give Strathclyde region a kick up the behind?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman referred to the high unemployment rate in his constituency. He shares that travel-to-work area with me and my constituency, and that is almost all that the hon. Gentleman and I have in common. Businesses there will benefit from the substantial


cash input for business rate reductions that I announced. Community charge payers eligible for benefit under the reduction scheme, and who were eligible under the earlier schemes, will also benefit substantially from my announcement tonight.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the delay in starting work on the A77 is not of the Government's making but is the fault of Strathclyde regional council, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the matter up with that authority.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. David Martin
Mr. Ron Davies
Mr. Peter Viggers

BILLS PRESENTED

BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP

Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Wakeham, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Secretary Waldegrave, Mr. David Mellor, and Mr. Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the National Research Development Corporation and the National Enterprise Board in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and for the subsequent dissolution of the Corporation and Board; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES

Mr. John MacGregor, supported by Mr. David Mellor, presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to the pensions payable to or in respect of persons who have held the office of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, Speaker of the House of Commons or Lord Chancellor; to relate the salary of the Lord Chancellor to that of the Lord Chief Justice; to provide for the making of grants to persons ceasing to hold ministerial and certain other offices and the payment of an allowance to persons holding those offices who are members of the House of Lords; to make new provision for determining the Exchequer contributions to the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund; and to extend the purposes for which payments can be made under section 4(1) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

House of Commons (Services)

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report to the House of Commons Commission on House of Commons Services (House of Commons Paper No. 38).
This may seem a distracting day on which to consider the management of the House of Commons, but perhaps there is a certain symbolic value, because at the very time that our country has been compelled to go to war, we nevertheless attend to the needs of democracy in our determination to ensure full democratic debate on this and other issues, and that our democracy is well and efficiently served.
Before examining the background to the Ibbs report and the detail of what is proposed, I want to place on record the gratitude of the House of Commons Commission for the enormous effort put into the report's preparation by Sir Robin Ibbs himself and by the efficient team of officers and civil servants who worked with him, and to the staff of the House, who co-operated so readily with him.
The Commission decided in late April last year to invite Sir Robin Ibbs to lead a team to undertake a review of management and decision-taking responsibilities for services to the House. The team's report was ready for consideration by the Commission by mid-October. It is short, concise and clear. It is based upon a great deal of information, and draws on interviews with more than 80 individuals, yet it is readable and to the point.
The report's recommendations provide a framework for action, but leave the Commission to fill in the details. Most important, the report seems to reflect, with considerable accuracy, the worries which hon. Members have about the way in which services are managed. Its recommendations are, accordingly, realistic, and in most respects they are likely to find favour with hon. Members on both sides of the House. If hon. Members care to look at the summary of recommendations, or at the report in more detail, I think that they will find that, in his aims and his attempts to improve the quality of services and decision-making procedures, Sir Robin and the committee have identified faults about which they are concerned.
The present administrative arrangements derive their authority from the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. That was based largely upon the recommendations in a report to the then Speaker, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, by a Committee of Members, chaired by Mr. Arthur Bottomley, who is now Lord Bottomley. At that time he was the hon. Member for Teesside.
The Bottomley proposals were concerned, first, to preserve the traditional independence of Departments of the House, to ensure that all the principal officers retained their direct access to Mr. Speaker and their ability to give entirely independent advice to all other hon. Members. The result was the creation of a federal administrative structure, albeit dedicated to the creation of a common service for the House.
The second, and the most important, feature of the Bottomley proposals was the existence of the principle that hon. Members should control their own services. Therefore, under the 1978 Act, the House of Commons Commission was established to act both as the employer of


permanent staff of the House, and as the body responsible for the preparation and presentation of the estimates required to meet the costs of the House of Commons.
Having served on the Commission since it was created, I am tempted to think that it is the Commission's quiet efficiency that has led to the fact that 37 per cent. of hon. Members claim that they know nothing at all about it, and 13 per cent. have never even heard of it, according to the Ibbs report. Surely that demonstrates the quiet competence with which the Commission goes about its work—there may be other reasons, in which case they will emerge during the debate.
The Commission has two important features which are not as widely appreciated as I think they should be. The Commission does not have a built-in Government majority. It is chaired very effectively by you, Mr. Speaker, and your political independence is assured. It also consists of the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and three other hon. Members appointed by the House. From the beginning it was accepted that these three would represent, respectively, the Government and official Opposition Back Benches and the other parties in the House. Therefore, the Commission includes only two hon. Members from the Government side and three from the Opposition. As a result the Government cannot, even if they would seek to do so, control the Commission's decisions.
Secondly, in financial matters—with which the Commission is largely concerned—that independence from Government is of crucial importance because, almost alone among the public service votes, estimates for the administration of the House are presented to Parliament not by the Chief Secretary but by you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Commission. This would be of little significance if the Commission were not genuinely free from Executive control, but because it is, over the years it has been able to increase staff levels, where necessary, to meet the increased demands of hon. Members for services from the House Departments.
The Commission has refused to be drawn into the formal constraints of the Government's cash limit system, and has judged the need for staff increases on the merits of each case.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there any guarantee that at some future date the Commission will not be cash-limited? Is anything about that written into its articles of association or founding documents?

Mr. Beith: The fact that the Commission is not in the cash-limiting system preserves the Commission's right to present its own estimates to the House. That right will be preserved even, as I shall explain later, in respect of those functions which the Commission will acquire if the recommendations in the report are carried out—functions which are now carried out by Government. Although the financial arrangements for those services which relate to the building will be different, the Commission will still preserve the right to present its own estimates.
The Commission has been able to contribute directly to addressing the balance of advantage between Parliament and the Executive. It is very much to the credit of successive Leaders of the House that they have, in my

experience, always supported the Commission's independence and have backed it in resisting pressure from successive Chief Secretaries to reinstate Treasury control over the expenditure of the House. It is especially remarkable considering the ministerial experience of the previous four Leaders of the House—all of whom have served as Treasury Ministers—which is an argument for gamekeepers turning poachers.
Nevertheless, there are certain important constraints on the Commission's freedom of action. First, we are required by statute to ensure that the pay, grading and conditions of service for staff of the House are kept "broadly in line" with those in the home civil service. Secondly, the Commission does not seek financial provisions for entirely new services which have not been approved by the House. Far and away the most important constraint is the limited range of services for which the Commission is responsible. That is the source of much of the confusion to which I referred earlier and the reason why so many hon. Members do not know what the Commission does. The Commission has not been responsible for maintaining the building in which we work, as that has been the responsibility of Government, in the form of the Property Services Agency —which is now Property Holdings. The Commission is, therefore, responsible for less than half the expenditure on House of Commons services. The Ibbs report seeks to address that constraint in particular.
The conclusion of the report which has attracted the most attention is the "almost universal dissatisfaction" among hon. Members about accommodation. The report recommends that responsibility for the House of Commons part of the parliamentary works budget should therefore be transferred to the Commission—probably with effect from the beginning of the financial year starting in April 1992.
In practice, it seems likely that for the time being the day-to-day provision of parliamentary works services will continue to be done by the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office. It is important to emphasise that the criticisms of the accommodation services, which are detailed in the Ibbs report, are criticisms of the decision-making system, not of the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office. Like so many other servants of the House, the PWO staff give loyal service to Parliament, despite the ambiguity of their present status, in which they seek to serve the House and the wishes of hon. Members and of those in another place, but are employed by and directly responsible to the Secretary of State, not to the House.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the hon. Gentleman construe the proposal that the House of Commons Commission should take responsibility for the votes for the premises to include the change that the staff of the House of Commons would be protected under health and safety legislation and food hygiene legislation, which does not apply on these premises at present because they are under Crown immunity?

Mr. Beith: That is not a direct consequence of the proposals in the report. The question is rather more complex than the hon. Gentleman suggests, which is why I hesitate to give an off-the-cuff answer. The legal definitions on which the Commission has sought advice are very complex. The Commission sought to act on the same basis as it would have acted upon had we been fully


subject to that legislation. The hon. Gentleman raises a proper matter, which is actively and often considered by the Commission.
As a result of the proposed transfer of responsibilities for the buildings and accommodation services, the report recommends the appointment of a director of works and supporting staff in the Serjeant at Arms' Department. The expectation is that the director of works would provide similar services for the other place.
The transfer of responsibility for the works programme will involve a significant increase in the financial responsibilities of the House of Commons Commission. From the beginning of the Ibbs inquiry, the Commission has recognised that that may require a more formal arrangement with the Treasury.
Annex F of the report sets out a possible basis for agreement with the Treasury in respect of the works budget alone. That does not affect any of the existing arrangements about the rest of our expenditure. It will involve agreement between the Commission and Ministers about the long-term rolling programme for expenditure on buildings and accommodation services, and about the size of the annual estimate for the works vote. However, the Commission will remain free to submit what it regards as an appropriate estimate to the House, and it will be for the House to resolve any disagreement that might arise with the Treasury. Treasury Ministers have now agreed that the responsibility for the works budget should be transferred on that basis. It seems unlikely that, in practice, any disagreements will arise between the Commission and the Treasury which cannot be resolved before the annual estimates are published.
In addition to the works budget, the Ibbs report proposes that the Commission should take full responsibility for all other House of Commons expenditure, apart from hon. Members' salaries and allowances. The other main item will be the cost of printing and publication of House papers and the provision of stationery and office equipment, which is currently met by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on "allied service" terms. In addition, it is proposed that the Commission should assume responsibility for the Commons component in the grants in aid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British American Parliamentary Group and the History of Parliament Trust, and for the cost of publicity services provided by the Central Office of Information.
The second major, far-reaching recommendation in the Ibbs report flows from the conclusion that the House lacked most of the financial management tools that are now common throughout the private sector and the public service. The report refers to the
absence of readily usable, comprehensive cost information",
and concludes in paragraph 17:
At a time when the need to demonstrate cost-consciousness is widely accepted, not least by Parliamentary Committees, arrangements in the House, far from setting a standard for others to follow, are a complex anachronism. A complete overhaul of financial systems is an inescapable necessity.
The report therefore proposes the introduction of a comprehensive financial management system in the development of an enhanced corporate management role for the Board of Management. House Departments will in future be expected to budget more effectively, to seek to

meet performance targets and indicators and to report regularly to the Commission and the House on their success or otherwise in meeting the objectives set for them.

Mr. Ray Powell: Did the inquiry find that previous Governments had been mistaken in regard to the allocation of funds, especially for accommodation? Is that why the accommodation that Members require has not been provided, and is it why the central complaint in the report relates to the lack of such accommodation?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman—who is very knowledgeable about such matters, because of his Committee service—must draw his own conclusions about the effectiveness with which the report deals with that complaint. His view, however, is echoed by many other hon. Members, especially those who have been in the House for a long time. Implicit in the report is a belief that it would have been much better had the maintenance, improvement and extension of our buildings been the subject of a proper system of management and control run by the House itself, with the House determining its priorities and ensuring that they could be met over a period.
To cope with the more demanding financial regime, the report proposes the appointment of a new director of finance to head the reorganised Finance and Administration Department, and the introduction of improved financial information and management systems in all Departments of the House. At the same time, the National Audit Office will be invited to take a much closer interest in the financial administration of the House.
The main initiative for the appointment of Sir Robin Ibbs to lead the inquiry came from the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). During his short but productive tenure, the right hon. and learned Gentleman became acutely aware of the difficulties involved in improving facilities and services for Members in the face of the multitude of decision-making bodies in the House. I recall discussing with him, for example, the request often put to us for a créche or day care facility for the children of staff. Let me leave aside for the moment the arguments for and against that proposal; the number and complexity of the bodies involved in assessing such a proposal is mind-boggling.
The former Leader of the House met many such requests, and was under sustained and increasing pressure from Back-Benchers on both sides of the House for better accommodation and services. He was made only too aware of the lack of a central focus for decisions. The effect of the Ibbs proposals will be to establish the House of Commons Commission as just such a focus, although it is important to emphasise that the Commission will not be acting on its own.
Valuable work is at present undertaken on our behalf by the Services Committee and, in particular, by the Sub-Committees of that Committee. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) carry especially heavy responsibility on behalf of the House, both advising on Members' needs for services and, not infrequently, giving what amount to directives to the Departments of the House and others responsible for providing those services.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Ibbs report recommends the replacement of the Services Committee by four free-standing Committees, plus one rather important Finance and Services Committee. It is proposed that the membership and chairmanship of the two groups should be interlocking, and that they should make recommendations to the Commission.
What are the distinct advantages of that system, as opposed to any modifications of the present one? The absence of comment on the work of the Services Committee, much of which is done by word of mouth, is testament to its present efficiency, and I cannot for the moment see any benefit in the Ibbs proposals.

Mr. Beith: The key disadvantage of the present system is the lack of any clear focus of responsibility on determining priorities and assessing how recommendations can be acted on, how requests can be met, how funds can be found and what costs can be reasonably incurred. I do not think that the House can advocate procedures for others to ensure that costs are provided efficiently and cost-effectively and then not adopt such procedures itself.
In many instances, the wishes and ambitions that are expressed through the Committees—particularly the Services Committee—cannot be met by those Committees, which may not be part of any mechanism whereby such requests can be dealt with. No one starting afresh would set up such a system to ensure that money was spent well and wisely on the provision of services for Members.
The Committees to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred—the freestanding Committees that would replace the Services Committee Sub-Committees—are designed principally to represent the interests of Members, as consumers of the services provided for the House. In addition, a new Finance and Services Committee, on which each of the new "consumer" Committees will be represented, will act as a filter for financial advice to the House of Commons Commission. The Commission has felt the need for a more effective filter for such advice, although it is advised very effectively on demands for specific services.

Mr. James Wallace: In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend pointed out that the present Commission has an interesting party balance: at least the minority parties are represented, as my hon. Friend is now eloquently showing. Will the new proposals give a proper place to the interests of minority parties?

Mr. Beith: Naturally, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter. It was certainly considered when Sir Robin and his team talked to Members in the House and prepared their reports. In those discussions, it was felt—I shall continue to express this view on the Commission—that minority parties must be represented, certainly on the Finance and Services Committee, and perhaps providing a Chairman for one of the specialist Committees. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be noted.
What is important is that, ultimately, one body—the Commission—will carry responsibility for decisions about services and the allocation of resources to them. At present, responsibilities are so widely diffused that it is often impossible to know who is answerable for what. I suggest that any hon. Member who doubts that should attend Monday's Question Time and note the amazing overlap of responsibility between myself answering on

behalf of the Commission, the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who replies on behalf of the Catering Sub-Committee from time to time.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: If there is to be a sharper focus on costs, what is likely to be the impact on catering losses? I understand that there is a true loss of £2·5 million, which works out at about £100 a week per Member while the House is sitting.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the House catering services are a major facility, although they are used primarily not by Members but by their staff and the staff of the House. It is important that those services are provided cost-effectively, and that the extent of any subsidy that is thought appropriate—as is often the case in many commercial and industrial concerns—is fully understood and properly accounted for.
Hon. Members may know that the Commission has recently received a separate report from outside consultants on the management of the Refreshment Department. That report was placed in the Library. The Commission is to consider representations from Members and staff on that review. The Commission has a continuing concern to ensure that the catering services are efficiently and cost-effectively provided. It is our view that the structures proposed under the Ibbs report will provide the most effective framework within which that can be done. The report does not address itself to all the questions that have to be considered in restructuring the management of the refreshment services, but it provides the best overall framework within which it can be done.
The Ibbs reforms will place responsibility for the Refreshment Department, as for other services, squarely on the shoulders of the Commission. But the new Select Committees will have a vital role in advising the Commission about how the services of the Refreshment Department, and other Departments of the House, should be organised to meet Members' needs.
The overall aim of the Ibbs report is to produce a single, coherent structure responsible for funding services for the House, and greater efficiency and accountability in the delivery of services. I believe that its implementation will assist the process of democracy by ensuring that the facilities Members need to represent their constituents and to bring the Executive to account can be provided efficiently and cost-effectively. The Commission looks forward to considering the views of hon. Members on the various aspects of the report, which we commend to the House.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has given us a most helpful introduction to this debate by explaining, as a member of the Commission, how he sees the implications of the Ibbs report. It is a welcome document. As the hon. Member said, it is necessary for things to be changed. I see it as a natural progression in the management of the affairs of the House from former days, when it was a royal palace where Parliament was present on sufferance, through to the proposal under which Parliament will have control of its own domain.
I remember, when I first came to the House, that one of the first steps in this direction was the setting up by the late Dick Crossman of the Services Committee in 1965 or 1966.


All I remember is that I was a member of that Committee for a number of years in the 1960s. It is right to make this further move, partly because of the massive growth in the cost of Parliament to public funds, and it is right to have it under what appears to be more sensible control.
During his introductory speech, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed did not say how big the Commission should be. I hesitate to become involved in this, but I wonder whether only six members will be enough when one considers all its new, large and important functions. It might be better in the future if it were rather larger.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out the result of the MORI poll, which demonstrated the view of virtually all hon. Members that the accommodation in the building is abysmal. I know that those who have to deal with accommodation do a heroic job in spreading around among a number of demanding people a very limited amount of accommodation. You and I, Mr. Speaker, in previous incarnations have had some experience of dealing with the demands—they can be extremely bad-tempered—for accommodation. It is absurd to expect hon. Members to work, as they do, in corridors, cubbyholes or cleaning cupboards, particularly with the new pressures that have been placed upon them over the years.
I welcome what is being done to improve that situation. I have not been to look at the new office premises that have been constructed across the road, because I do not particularly want the inconvenience of crossing the road to get to my office. However, I hope that the Commission or whoever deals with these matters will not go mad. It is easy for authorities to go mad in supplying what is said to be adequate accommodation.
I remember about 25 years ago going to visit one of the office buildings adjoining the Capitol building in Washington just after it had been built. I was taken into one of the new offices by a friend of mine, who was a distinguished Republican Member of the House of Representatives from California. He was the ranking Republican on the maritime committee and the second ranking Republican on the foreign relations committee.
He showed a number of us the absurd bank of safes that had been constructed. He said that the committees received some confidential documents but we were looking at a massive bank of safes in a fairly large room alongside his office. He ferreted in his pocket and produced some combinations, opened the doors and invited us in to see that the safe space was too large for his needs. We all went in and found that all he kept there were two bottles of whisky and one bottle of gin.
I hope that that sort of thing will not happen here. I hope that there will be some sensible prudence in ensuring that hon. Members have acceptable office accommodation.
I want to draw my principal point to the attention of the Commission and the Government. I want to put down a marker on behalf of a number of groups referred to in annex D to the Ibbs report, to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred. Those groups are the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the History of Parliament Trust and the British American Parliamentary Group, of which I am the honorary secretary. Those four bodies are currently grant-aided bodies in Parliament, sponsored and directly paid for by the Treasury.
A year or two ago—I forget exactly when—the Treasury proposed a change in the system of support for those bodies. It suggested that the support should be shifted to the budget of Parliament. The executive committees of those four groups came to the conclusion that that was not a good thing. We had a meeting with the Treasury and, after discussions, it was agreed about a year ago that it was better to leave the funding with the Treasury and allow it to continue to sponsor the four groups.
Immediately after that, we had the Ibbs report, which in annex D seems to suggest again that the costs be transferred from the Treasury to the House of Commons Commission. Since the publication of the report, those four groups have had a meeting, at which I presided, to discuss the report. All four groups took an open-minded approach to whether it would be sensible to move the support and funding from the Treasury to the Commission. There are strong arguments both ways.
However, two of the executive committees that I know well—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive, of which I am a member, and the British American Parliamentary group—have not yet discussed in detail the decision about which way we should move. Although Ibbs has recommended that, I hope that the Commission and the Government will not embrace it but will, please, engage in discussions with representatives of the four groups to try to reach agreement, which should not prove too difficult.
There are several problems. For instance, all the groups have substantial membership from the House of Lords. Therefore, joint funding from the House of Lords and the House of Commons would be a problem. That problem could be overcome, but it would arise if we moved to obtaining funding from the Commission's budget.
The groups receive grant from the Treasury, which leaves them to manage their own affairs. If we changed to support from the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission, if there were to be one, would it lead to a loss of autonomy? Would it mean that ultimate responsibility for the management of the groups passed to, perhaps, the Clerk's Department or the new reinvigorated Services Committee? Here, again, a further problem arises with arrangements for accommodation and staffing.
Those problems must be resolved, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will agree to discussions with the four groups to try to work out the most sensible and reasonable solution to what is not too serious a problem. However, we do not want the problem pre-empted by decisions being taken without discussion.

Mr. John Garrett: I find the Ibbs report disappointing, although it is a useful start to a discussion on these important issues.
It is true that the terms of reference of the Ibbs team were restricted, but the report is superficial and fails to follow through its own logic. Its most culpable fault is that it is too deferential to the established order.
The central feature of House of Commons services is that they are well administered. Hon. Members get all the service we could possibly ask for from the Clerk's Department, the Library, the Refreshment Department


and the Department of the Serjeant at Arms. The House is well administered but poorly managed, due to an amateurish House of Commons which has never sought to improve the services of the House.
Sir Edmund Compton's report on the same subject in 1974 got much closer to the central issue. Its key passage states:
My assessment of Members' requirements of service from the staff of the House is that the time has come for a significant shift of activity from procedural services to administrative and management services—that is, to develop the organisation and staffing of the services that support and assist Members in their life and work in the House.
That led Sir Edmund to the inescapable conclusion that the services of the House had to have a chief executive. That still seems to be true, and to be the logical conclusion of the findings of the Ibbs report. It is dismissed by the Ibbs report in a single line.
We may not have to look too far to find out why the Ibbs team did not take up the possibility of a chief executive. The Compton report's recommendation produced an irate response from the then Clerk of the House, who wrote a furious memorandum to the Bottomley committee, which considered the report, claiming that what happened in the Chamber was of paramount importance, that it dwarfed all else in the service of the House and that that made him the senior officer of the House. He suggested that all Departments report to him.
It is true that, as accounting officer, the Clerk is the senior officer of the House and, nowadays, de facto chief executive, but in recent years the Treasury has greatly enlarged the role of all accounting officers. In 1866, when they were invented, their job simply was to sign the accounts as correct, but nowadays the Treasury memorandum on the duty of an accounting officer requires an accounting officer to ensure that all managers under his command—his or her command; there is one female permanent secretary—should have objectives, performance measures and management information systems.
The Clerk of the House, with all his heavy and complex procedural duties in direct service of the House, as well as running a complicated Department of his own, cannot fulfil those terms of reference. He cannot act as a managing director of an institution that costs more than £130 million a year to run.
Worse still, the Ibbs report proposes that ultimate responsibility for management should continue to be shared between you, Mr. Speaker, who would handle non-financial matters, which I suppose includes labour relations of 1,000 members of staff, and the Clerk, who would handle financial matters. You, Mr. Speaker, know best. I know that you cannot intervene in this debate, but you will agree that you are in no position to act as chief executive, bearing in mind all your many representational duties and the fact that, since the televising of the House, you have become a substantial international figure. With all the demands on your time, it is ridiculous to require you, with the Clerk of the House, to act as the managing director of an institution which costs more than £130 million a year to run.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given way. I assure him that I have not consulted the Clerk or you, Mr. Speaker, on what I am about to say. Is it not

possible that the former Clerk may have been over-egging, but justifiably egging, the pudding? Although a chief executive may be more efficient in dealing with technical matters and the matters of importance that my hon. Friend mentioned, is it not vital that services be oriented to the demands of the Chamber and what happens here, not to the administrative convenience of a chief executive? Therefore, the priorities of serving the House must be related to the services required by Members, as seen by the Clerk and by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Garrett: No, my hon. Friend is quite wrong. He confuses the Chamber with the House.

Mr. Spearing: It all happens here.

Mr. Garrett: It does not all happen here. It happens in Committees, in our constituency case work and in the way in which we relate to the communities that we represent. The Chamber is no longer necessarily the focal point of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend may think that, and when he makes his speech he can explain why he thinks so. I referred to the Compton report, which said that the procedural demands of the House should no longer be paramount—a conclusion with which I agree.
Most of the Ibbs report is taken up with describing the chaos of the accounting systems. There is no costing, no planning and no budgetary control and its analysis of the antiquated systems that we operate is very useful. The Ibbs report is right to propose that all House of Commons services should be brought under the control of the Commission.
It is ridiculous, for example, that we do not have control of this building. It points out that the costs of the House are covered by seven votes, for which responsibility is distributed among five accounting officers. Those seven votes cover our expenditures, but not all the accounting officers are in the service of the House.
That still leaves Members' pay and allowances with the Treasury. It is wrong that the Executive should impose conditions of service on the legislature; only a supine legislature would allow that. All the costs, including Members' pay and allowances, should come under the control of the Commission.

Mr. Beith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should express the present position a little more clearly. The Top Salaries Review Body makes recommendations about Members' pay and allowances, and the House determines whether those or other recommendations should be acted upon, sometimes in defiance of the Government's wishes. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about whether it would be appropriate to bring that duty within the Commission's responsibility, but there is another view—that it is better for the recommendations to come from an outside body and have them determined on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Garrett: I am familiar with that argument, but, more often than not, the amount of money given to Members of Parliament in, for example, allowances is determined by the Government and is not determined often enough by the House.
The Ibbs report creates the position of director of finance—which is necessary—but makes him adviser to the Clerk. If accounting and budgeting matters are so bad, I believe that the director should be independent.
Ibbs also creates a director of works with, I am glad to see, a direct labour organisation—which is also necessary—but makes him report to the Serjeant at Arms; so an Officer with a proposed annual spend of £35 million and a backlog of work involving no less than £220 million will report to an Officer of the House whose spend is £3 million. I believe that that director should be independent, too.
There is a great silence at the centre of the Ibbs report—the Comptroller and Auditor General is missing. There is no doubt that, since the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of the House. He is an expert on financial control. Why is he not therefore on the Board of Management? The reason is that the Treasury has never accepted him as an Officer of the House and would strongly resist any such formal appointment.
The top structure for the management of the services of the House should be six departmental heads and should include a director of finance, a director of works and the Comptroller and Auditor General—all under a chief executive reporting to the Commission. I do not think that, with a chief executive charged to improve the services of the House, it would have taken the 30 years it took to establish the need for and location of a new parliamentary building. After all, it took only 15 years to build the entire Palace of Westminster.
If I understand the Ibbs report correctly—perhaps someone will explain to me if I am wrong—a further weakness is that it proposes the abolition of the Services Select Committee, although it appears to recreate it as a Finance and Services Select Committee. The proposed new Committee is a management body, preparing estimates, advising the Commission and carrying tasks out on its behalf. It is not a Select Committee, holding hearings, examining witnesses and producing reports and recommendations for change and improvements on behalf of the House—it would not be empowered to do so.
We know from the Ibbs recommendation that the proposed Committee should move away from a process of taking evidence. It would be there to serve, not prod, management. The House would thereby lose its only machinery for advocacy in these matters. In my view, the distinction between the providers and the users of services—us, through the Services Committee—should be clear, with the users being empowered to produce reports on the services required for Members, based on the examination of evidence put before them.
The Ibbs report also took the MORI survey of Members' opinions at face value, without looking into services that Members need but did not have sufficient knowledge to articulate that need or were not asked about. The poll showed that Members cared most about accommodation and catering. Both those problems are largely dictated by the size and age of the Palace of Westminster, and, until new buildings are available, they will have to be lived with. However, there is no reason why the people who work in this place should be under Crown immunity from health and safety and food hygiene regulations. There is no reason why those regulations cannot be made to apply to the staff of the House.
For someone trying to do a professional job as a Member of Parliament, another issue, which was missed by Ibbs, looms much larger—the primitive state of the information technology available to Members. Information technology services here are pathetic, and

there have been several reports on this matter. The Government have always refused to upgrade our office equipment or even to discuss it.
The only information technology we have is a telephone line and the annunciator system, which is 30 years old and costs nearly £200,000 a year to maintain. Each box costs £1,000 because it is obsolete and has to be converted from a 425-line television set. Not long ago, a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment had the temerity to say that no replacement was necessary.
Worse still, the new building across the road is not cabled for the information technology services that we need. We need a properly cabled parliamentary estate so that we each have work stations provided by the House for word processing, for paging, for electronic mail, for accessing the Library and for a clean feed from the Chamber, as other legislatures in France, Germany, Canada and the United States have. Every attempt by the Services Committee to improve our information technology equipment has been refused by junior Ministers at the Department of the Environment, which is an abuse of Parliament.
The Ibbs report left far too much power with the Treasury. It frequently referred to the oversight of the Treasury and to arrangements for making applications for funding to the Treasury. There is a serious defect in arrangements that allow the Executive to control and ration expenditure which makes the legislature effective.
There is no evidence that the House would be profligate but for Treasury control. The House of Commons Commission has a reputation for miserliness. Look how it recently refused funding to enable Select Committees to take evidence in Europe. The Commission should be trusted to produce a plan for the development of services and directly present all the estimates for what we need to the House for its approval and its works should be scrutinised by the Services Committee.
The real problem is that Leaders of the House are not, on the whole, defenders of and advocates for the services that support the House, but are primarily concerned to defend the interests of the Executive. Perhaps the new Leader of the House will be different, but I very much doubt it. We should establish our own unilateral declaration of independence and have a Commission that is responsible for all our costs, puts them to the House and lets the House vote on them.

Sir Ian Lloyd: To a large extent, what the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said in both parts of his speech was music to my ears. I shall not be tempted to follow him in the earlier part of his speech, except to say that he reinforced a conclusion which I reached many years ago—virtually all political problems are boundary problems. The moment the boundary is moved, all hell breaks loose.
I could not help but profoundly concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments on information technology. I was a member of a Committee which went to Canada many years ago and produced the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I was also a member of the Committee which produced the subsequent report which said that it was time we began to look towards the 21st century with equipment comparable to that available to our colleagues in Canada and, more recently, in Canberra.


That is essential. Whether we go back to the original Services Committee or whether we accept the Ibbs proposals, this must be a high priority in our thinking.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) used an interesting phrase when discussing the history of the House of Commons Commission. He referred to the balance of advantage between Parliament and the Executive. I share the view that the responsibility of the House for its expenditure should be total, detailed and visible, and that we should be responsible for it and no one else. The dilemma arises for a simple, fundamental reason—after every general election, whichever party is returned to power, the Executive is, as it were, carved out of this place by caesarean section, which creates a fundamental dilemma. Once that has happened, there is a marked change in the general character of this place. I do not see how that will be easily remedied or altered. However, we must accept that that does take place and that the basic responsibility of the House of Commons for the control of the expenditure of the nation is in a rather unsatisfactory state.
If, as has been implied this evening, the efficiency of that control demands that we as a parliamentary body and as a legislature should decide which instruments and information we need, no part of the Executive should have any say in that. If we should be extravagant or wasteful in providing ourselves with expenditure, we alone should be answerable to the nation for that extravagance. As the hon. Member for Norwich, South has said, we should not be able to blame a junior Minister for acting in between what we want and for applying his ruling to the Treasury.
We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for his useful and comprehensive survey of the Ibbs report. The report is long overdue; it will be much discussed and there will be many views about it. I merely conclude that, in my experience of this place, a change in the procedures of the House is the only event that requires a longer gestation period than that of the elephant. It is very slow.
I support the main recommendations of the Ibbs report because we must move quite fundamentally. The House must take a stronger grip on its own affairs. Whether we accept the new structure proposed by Ibbs or some other structure that will eventually evolve, it must, in the words of the Ibbs report,
respond adequately to Members' needs and to determine priorities between them.
I want to turn now to such a priority and I want to begin by declaring an unusual interest. It is not a personal or financial interest, but an interest in a subject that I believe to be a fundamental necessity for the House. I have the honour at present to be the president of the parliamentary and scientific committee and the chairman of the principal organisation about which I shall speak —the parliamentary office of science and technology. That is the technical limit of my interest which I felt that I should declare. It is entirely altruistic.
There is more than palpably today a fundamental need in all modern democratic legislatures for scientific information of the highest quality, relevance and objectivity. I can give two examples which may be of interest to the House. The Gulf war suggests to us that all modern weaponry is fundamentally dependent upon the most advanced science. The House has to decide, at least

in principle, on the weaponry with which our armed forces are equipped and whether that weaponry is appropriate and cost-efficient. It will interest the House to know that one of the current projects of the parliamentary office of science and technology is on the inter-relationship between defence, and civil science and technology. That report has yet to appear, but we are working on it.
On the political side, I refer to the political impact of all the scientific work on DNA—deoxyribonucleic acid. In that context, the parliamentary office of science and technology is in the process of producing a report on research in the national health service. However, I can probably illustrate the political significance of that rather more vividly than those dry titles might suggest by referring hon. Members to an article that appeared in the most recent issue of New Scientist and referred to a gentleman by the name of John Moore. I wonder whether many hon. Members have heard of a Mr. John Moore —apart from our own colleague. We shall hear a great deal more about him because the case that is described in the magazine is fascinating and will have far-reaching effects on public and political life.
It is an extraordinary story. Mr. John Moore had an oversized spleen, which grew from 0·5 kg to 6 kg. When doctors took it out of his body, they discovered that he had produced a unique type of white blood cell. Given modern technology, scientists decided that that unique type of blood cell would probably be very effective against many other diseases and possibly even against cancer. Using modern technology, the scientists have taken that blood cell and reproduced it on a large scale. Two companies are now selling it.
The sale of that commodity—if I may call it that—has aroused immense interest in the United States and the case has even reached the Supreme Court because Mr. John Moore thinks that it belongs to him and the scientists think that it belongs to them. Naturally, the public think that it should belong to them. This is precisely the type of problem and dilemma that scientific research, not least in biology, will present to us. It is interesting that a senior legal analyst at the United States office of technology assessment—to which I will refer in a moment—said:
Few people have thought through all the arguments and the many different ways of interpreting existing laws.
I want to give the House a brief history of the parliamentary office of science and technology. We have based it unashamedly on the American example, as I have said many times. We first discovered the American office in the early 1970s. A number of us visited the office in 1986 and we made a recommendation to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), that our legislature needed a similar office. She was sympathetic, but reluctant to do anything other than suggest that the parliamentary and scientific committee should take full responsibility for the development of such an organisation.
We said, "Right, we accept that challenge" and there was only one way in which to do that. We had to go outside both Houses of Parliament to the rest of the country and seek financial support from industry and from foundations such as Nuffield, Leverhulme, Wellcome, the Royal Society and the British Association, all of which were generous. We received surprisingly generous support from Members of both Houses—although proportionately that support was small—and we even received some support from universities and polytechnics. As I am sure


you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, POST has, as a result, produced 20 briefing papers on a wide variety of subjects and only yesterday it produced its first major report, which I have here, entitled "Technologies for Teaching", which is a subject of great current interest.
We have also introduced the concept of the Westminster Fellow. Young scientists of some experience attach themselves to both Houses of Parliament, under the umbrella of POST, for a brief period and are financed by POST. We reached the position where we proved that such an organisation could work, that it was required and that Members of Parliament found it of great interest—and not only Members of Parliament. We have had requests for papers from as far afield as the United States and Australia as they are regarded as being of considerable quality.
I was instructed to explore the possibility of some form of central funding of a service for Parliament by Parliament itself. I wrote to the then Leader of the House, who is now Secretary of State for Energy, and asked him what he thought he could do about this proposal. His successor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), replied and gently equivocated. He said, "Not now. We do not think that the time has come."
I was then instructed to write to the Commission, as the Leader of the House had also suggested. I was told, "Not now. Everything is in the melting pot. Sir Robin Ibbs is doing an inquiry. Why don't you write to Sir Robin Ibbs?" I wrote to him and he sent me a polite letter saying, "This is not a matter for me." So it goes round and round. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke about the great diversity of responsibility and that was shown in this instance. Improved arrangements for considering the provision of new services are most certainly required.
Where do we stand now'? Our Parliament is well known to be a long way behind the United States legislature, which is the prime example of a legislature with an advanced technology assessment facility. That organisation employs a staff of 200 for technology assessment alone, with a budget of $20 million. I have never argued that we should even begin to approach that level. It is not required and it would not be appropriate; it would be extravagant in relation to our national resources. I would not dream of making such a case. But what about Denmark? The Danish Parliament has a technology assessment staff of 11 and spends 10 million to 12 million krona per annum. France has a staff of six and spends 6 million francs per annum. Germany spends DM2 million on its parliamentary assessment facilities. The Netherlands —a much smaller country than the United Kingdom—has a staff of nine and spends £1·5 million. The European Parliament—one of the most recent to embark on this path —has a modest staff of five and spends about 500,000 ecus, which is equivalent to £350,000 to £400,000.
It is interesting to note that all the technology assessment organisations to which I have referred are properly funded by the Parliaments that they serve. Ours is not. Those of us who believe that such facilities are necessary find it difficult to imagine going back to all the organisations which said, "We think that this is a good idea. We shall support it on an experimental basis and, if Parliament likes it, Parliament must fund it," and say, "Parliament likes the service. We find the reports and service that POST now supplies to Select Committees and

other bodies valuable, but you—private industry and the foundations—must go on paying for it." That is illogical and, in my judgment, we should change it.
I come to my final comparison. Japan has decided that its Parliament must have an organisation of technology assessment. I hate to think what the funding for that will be. It will certainly be on a very generous scale—not surprisingly as the Government science budget is now running at about 780,000 million yen per annum, which I believe is equivalent to about £3 billion. According to the latest figures, total research and development expenditure in Japan amounts to about £32 billion.
My plea is simple and fundamental. The parliamentary office of science and technology is not just another peripheral committee. It is an organisation established by the oldest all-party committee of both Houses—the parliamentary and scientific committee, which was 50 years old last year—to supply both Houses of Parliament with a basic information service. POST has operated on an experimental basis for nearly two years with the support of the country. It needs to be firmly established on a long-term basis. It needs to be properly funded by Parliament as the basic information service for Parliament. That needs to be done as soon as possible. By that, I mean not tomorrow or next year, but now.

Ms. Joan Walley: When I first joined the House of Commons (Services) Committee, I had certain illusions about what I could achieve by attending its meetings, held once every eight weeks or whenever the Committee decided to meet, and the meetings of the Catering Sub-Committee, the only Sub-Committee of which I was a full member, which met whenever the Chairman thought it appropriate—often, it seemed, determined by the number of wine tastings that needed to be held rather than by the need to deal with real issues concerning food. I thought that I could do something to change the way in which the House was run. I have been under that illusion ever since I was elected to this place.
I am still committed and determined to ensure that, even if the Ibbs report is not the answer to everything, we treat it at least as the best starting point that we have had for a good many years. I have the distinct impression that the Committees on which I have served provide us with little more than a history lesson. One goes along only to be told, "This matter was raised back in 1950", or, "We thought of having a new office block then." When the managing director of ICL in my constituency came to the House for a meeting, he burst out laughing when he saw the annunciator screens. We are constantly told that people have tried but failed miserably to get anything done to change the way in which this place works. That is simply because there has never been the political will to do anything about it. Quite apart from anything else, that is one of the main reasons why we have so few women in the House. As was said earlier, one has to be almost mad to work in this place.
We need decent working conditions not only for Members of Parliament who are elected to serve democracy but for their staff and all those behind the scenes—those who run the Library so efficiently, those in the Fees Office who deal with our expenses so well and those in the Refreshment Department who do their best to


provide food. I am not advancing an elitist argument and saying that we should do something for Members of Parliament alone. I am talking about all the people who work here. Hon. Members almost live here, as well as working here. Sometimes, I have been here for 17 hours at a stretch. I have taken the one bed available, perhaps to get three or four hours' kip before coming to the Dispatch Box. Often, I have had to get into that bed when it has just been vacated by another lady Member who was about to come to the Chamber for a debate. That is an absurd way of going about our business.
I am not being sensationalist in suggesting that we should consider the number of premature deaths among hon. Members—even during my short time in this place. If we are serious about the House and about democracy, we must take all those points on board.
The way in which the House is run is nonsensical. We are all elected to represent our areas, and we may have 70,000 constituents or more. We do not have the tools to do our job. No authority—other than one cash-starved by central Government—and no private company would expect its managing director or its employees to do their job, with all the targets that they must achieve, in such conditions. Like everyone else, hon. Members want to do a good job. We want to serve our constituents well. To do that, we need the tools. That applies not only to us but, for example, to the Refreshment Department staff. They need changing rooms and somewhere to which they can go and have a break. At the moment, they sometimes have to go to the ladies' toilet because there is nowhere else.
We also need somewhere to meet our constituents. It is all very well having banqueting rooms that one can book for a prestigious do at £15 or £20 a head. But what about the pensioners who legitimately want to lobby their Members of Parliament? Where is one to take them? One cannot even give them a cup of tea. It is no good saying, "The building is too small; we can't do anything about it." We have been waiting for the new building for years and the plans may be put back again. What difference will the extension of the Jubilee line make to the new building programme? We have nowhere to bring pensioners, school children and those who legitimately wish to lobby their Members of Parliament as part of the democratic process.
What do we need to do our job properly? What do the staff need? We need an office. I do not want to share with four other hon. Members and their researchers an office in which I have to climb over bags and bins and piles of paper to get to my desk and where there is not even room to sit at my desk. I do not want my research staff to work in such cluttered conditions. When someone comes to this place and goes beyond the lovely, well-appointed state rooms for which the House is so special they find a different story. I am often told off for raising questions about lights that do not work on the stairs behind the corridor, but if my colleagues break their wrists or injure themselves in other ways when walking down unlit corridors or over threadbare carpets there is no possibility of compensation and no one has responsibility.
If there is no way in which the Serjeant at Arms, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Commission, the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Services Committee or the Clerks can get the lamp changed, the matter should be brought to the Floor of the House. I note

the almost superficial way in which the Ibbs report refers to that. We raise matters on the Floor of the House and in questions only when we have failed to get anything done because the system does not work.
We need to have our offices and all the stairways properly cleaned. Every time I go into the Tea Room I am aware that we cannot even sort out who is responsible for what. The Catering Sub-Committee is responsible for cleaning one part of it. The PSA and someone else at the Department of the Environment is responsible for cleaning other parts.

Mr. Tony Banks: For not cleaning it.

Ms. Walley: My hon. Friend is right.
The areas where we eat food would be closed by environmental health officers if they were in any other public place in the country. The Ibbs report does not properly address that issue. The problem relates to Crown immunity as much as anything else. I have raised the matter in the Chamber on numerous occasions. The previous Leader of the House said that he was aware of the problems that result from Crown immunity, but I have seen no progress in having it removed.
I am mindful that when it was proposed to remove Crown immunity from hospital kitchens an enormous amount of work had to be done and new equipment brought in simply to comply with basic standards set by the legislation passed in this very Chamber. Yet we cannot even look after our own interests. There is a double standard. We simply cannot provide decent and safe conditions for not only Members but all the staff of the House and the members of the public who come here on many occasions.
I could go on at length but I am mindful of the time. In view of the large number of premature deaths among Members of Parliament, we should consider our working hours. Some people might say that it was not within the terms of reference of the Ibbs report to consider working hours, but it should have dealt with the matter. The way in which the House is run and its management is to be handed over to a Finance and Services Committee which will have executive powers. The hours during which the House operates and the way in which Committees and the business of the House are run will have a direct bearing on its work. It is high time that we reviewed the demands that are made on us. We often sit continuously for many hours. That must be urgently reviewed. Everyone who has a job to do in the House must have proper working hours.
I cannot stress strongly enough our lack of concern about healthy eating and meeting basic food regulations in the House. It is not on anyone's agenda and I do not see it on the agenda of the Ibbs report. Nor is it strategically placed on the agenda of the Touche Ross report which can be found in the Library. The report was published partly in consultation with the Ibbs committee. Linkage seems to be the word at the moment and there is linkage between the two reports.
I can almost see hon. Members saying to each other, "I hope she will not talk about healthy eating again." I have raised the need for healthy food many times in the Catering Sub-Committee. I feel like a previous Prime Minister who, when asked what he had achieved in this place, said that he had set up cats' eyes. Sometimes the only thing that I feel that I have achieved is to introduce


fresh salads in the Tea Room. Yet quiche is still served off hotplates. Proper attention is not paid to refrigeration. We do not have proper advice about the environmental health standards which apply in every other workplace in the country.
The House should not be treated differently and people should not be ridiculed for raising serious issues such as I have raised. As we have seen in the other place, serious problems of food poisoning and salmonella can result. We should not have to wait for such problems to arise before something is done.
No one seems to be responsible for cleaning in the House and it seems that no one has ever wanted to have the responsibility. I wonder whether the Ibbs report can even begin to introduce integrated management of the House. If the proposals for a new Committee are accepted, the Commission or the executive officers with responsibility for formulating the new system of management must take an integrated approach. They must make sure that the Committee has properly set out terms of reference. It should not consider the purely financial or accounting aspects of issues. It must consider how the House can comply with all the health and safety at work regulations and be a place in which people can work and members of the public can visit us in safety, as they rightly wish to do.
I could relate many occasions when we have spent hours talking about whether we should hang 79 portraits in the Harcourt Room rather than dealing with basic matters of food hygiene. However, to do so would not take the debate any further. I simply stress that we must do something about Crown immunity. I heard the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) say that it is too complicated an issue to go into. However, we have removed Crown immunity from hospital kitchens and incinerators. We have made headway in the prison service, as my hon. Friends will testify. I see no reason why the Palace of Westminster, where the legislation of this country is passed, should be exempt from the basic safety procedures and health and safety at work requirements which govern every other place in the country. I hope that something constructive can come from the report.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. I recognise the intensity of feeling of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). Having served with her for some time on the Catering Sub-Committee, I know full well her commitment and sense of purpose in these matters. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not pursue her line of argument. However, some of my remarks will impinge on what she said.
I express my thanks to Sir Robin Ibbs and his team for the way in which they conducted their inquiry, listened to the many representations made and discussed their findings with those who had made them before the report was published.
I also pay my compliments to the House of Commons Commission for the way in which it has worked. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it is not the highest-profile body in the House, but it has had to do a tremendous amount of work since it was set up. Those charged with that authority have a substantial burden. I give a broad welcome to the findings of the Ibbs report.
There is no doubt that the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will bear close reading by the management side—what I would call the professional side or administration—rather than the Members of the House. He made some good observations which may be a little astringent in the light of what Ibbs set out, but they are nevertheless worthy of attention.
I read the Ibbs report as a member of the House of Commons (Services) Committee since 1979, who has served on the Library Sub-Committee, the Catering Sub-Committee, the New Building Sub-Committee and the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in the intervening years. It is a terrible catechism. The Ibbs Committee listened to my observations about the necessity of having larger sub-committees or larger committees studying the various sectors. There is a need to ensure that the hon. Members selected to serve have a substantial interest in the committee, or there will be a low attendance and the committee will not achieve the level of debate which is essential to proper decisions. I know full well the difficulty of securing a quorum when there are other pressures in the House. It is frustrating not to have the extent of attendance at a Select Committee meeting to enable it to discuss in the depth which one would like the problems on the agenda for the day.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South said that the abolition of Select Committees was not a good thing. Select Committees and the Sub-Committees of the Services Committee have worked best in my experience when they have been in deliberative rather than investigative mode. That is not to say that they cannot switch into investigative mode when it is appropriate. We have achieved our best work when discussing matters in conjunction with the professionals of the House. If necessary, we have set up the procedure in such a way so as to examine the professionals of the House and other witnesses, and reported accordingly.
That is the way in which we have progressed in respect of the Library. With the team work which has been built up as a consequence we have been able to sustain the high level of services offered by the Library to which tribute is rightly paid in the report. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich, South for his reference to the quality of service provided by the Library and accept it on behalf of the Library staff, who will be heartened by that recognition.
I like the concept of the new structure because I think that it will more accurately define the area of work with which we are involved. The five sub-committee structure has been woolly and inconclusive, indeterminate and generally speaking not satisfactory. Sir Robin Ibbs makes the point in his report that at the main Services Committee the only people able to contribute are the Members of the sub-committee who have an awareness of the issues involved. That means that for the most part the Services Committee is irrelevant. Therefore, it would be appropriate to increase the size of the sub-committees, or turn them into committees, with a head committee to co-ordinate and gather together the input of the other committees. To that extent, it is a tight operation which is capable of delivering service well from the point of view of hon. Members.
On the financial side, that would also have the effect of imposing on the other sectors the disciplines that we have used in the Library for some time, whereby we use the financial estimates of the Librarian as a mechanism for


studying priorities and the effectiveness of policy over the preceding year and for looking forward to the forthcoming year. It has been an effective mechanism for scrutiny.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) spoke about the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. I am attracted to the concept whereby the Executive is even more separated from Parliament. The recommendation by Sir Robin Ibbs that the House of Commons Commission takes on board full responsibility is to be welcomed.
Reference has been made to the phase 1 Parliament street building. It may be frustrating to hon. Members, and it is certainly frustrating to me as I have been involved since its inception, that it has taken nearly eight years to get to the present stage. It is a miracle that it ever happened at all. We worked very hard under the able chairmanship of the late John Silkin to pull together the details, to get the proposal through the House, to wrap it all up and get it out to contract, but the dead hand of Treasury kept interfering and we had to cut back on this and that. Admittedly, we will have new accommodation, but it will not have the facility for information technology, the facility for document transfer between the two buildings or the subway concept, which would have been superseded by the Jubilee line changes anyway. Those points had to be trimmed back. The building is coming, but it is a miracle. I look forward enormously to the opening of the new research library which will be there.
I welcome the Ibbs report broadly, but I want to put down some markers. The first relates to the Refreshment Department, which has been mentioned in the debate. It is particularly frustrating. We are all, as consumers of food, enormously expert. We have a range of differing tastes, requirements and shapes. The subject of the Refreshment Department is fraught with difficulties.
I joined the Catering Sub-Committee before it had been restructured, when the interest payment on the overdraft was greater than the entire turnover for the year. It was a shambles. We had misunderstandings, as was indicated earlier in the debate; it was felt that the entire subsidy related to 600 Members when the Department actually feeds 3,500 people every day. It is a very difficult area in which to work. The Ibbs report has not taken on board that nicety.
When we started in 1979—I say "we" because I joined the Sub-Committee at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), under whose able chairmanship it has been transformed over the last 11 years—we could get nothing done to improve facilities for staff, for catering, for equipment or for hon. Members. The Property Services Agency always said that that was impossible and that we did not have the money. Things were restructured and changes made in 1980. The staff element was taken on board and the Refreshment Department is now subject to a vote in the House as though it was any other works canteen. We were then free to adopt a trading policy that would develop certain resources. Armed with those resources we were able to go to the Parliamentary Works Officer, the PSA and the relevant Minister at the Department of the Environment and say, "We have money from our surplus to be able to do this work. Where is yours?"
As a consequence of the restructuring, we have been able to undertake many changes. We forget what some of them were and some have never been seen or understood. Consider, for example, the £1 million or so that was spent on ventilation of the main kitchens. Ten years ago those kitchens were places where even galley slaves should not have worked—they were awful. Now they are a lot better. They are not the best, but goodness gracious me, improvements have been made. We have also improved the Tea Room, but I accept that there are still improvements to be made.
The frustrating thing is that we have been unable to achieve the improvement, that we want and for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has been pressing for the past 10 years—improvements in the changing and rest room facilities for the staff. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, those facilities are still a disaster area. We must resolve that problem.
I am worried about the reference in the Ibbs report to this year's accounts and the £300,000 trading surplus. The inference is that, somehow or other, that surplus should go to the Commission because it could then carry the finance for the entire Palace of Westminster. If that happened, the emphasis of representations from Members to the Catering Sub-Committee would be for price reductions in services or for pegging the price of a cup of tea so that the surplus was reduced and we did not have to pass the money on. If that money was passed on, we might no longer be able to deploy it to good effect in the Refreshment Department. It might be used to sort out requirements in other parts of the House; after all, we are part of a system of conflicting requirements.

Ms. Walley: Although I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, does he agree that it is extremely important that the full accounting procedures of the Catering Sub-Committee should be published in more detail than at present?

Mr. Shepherd: I do not disagree. There is no reason why we should not have full accounting procedures for the Refreshment Department and for them to be published in whatever detail seems appropriate.
I am worried about the attitude of Members serving on the Catering Sub-Committee. If it was felt that any trading surplus could not be deployed for the benefit of the Refreshment Department, problems might arise. It is tempting to try to take that trading surplus because we obtain a good income from, for example, the kiosk. That was a marketing initiative developed to hold down prices for Members in the Members' Dining Room and for the Press Gallery.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned banqueting facilities. In 1980 we put up the price of the banqueting facilities—we almost doubled them and added in our own birthdays—to get a major contribution to the price that we needed to charge Members and staff for the services that we offered and that they could not avoid consuming.
I am worried that we may throw away the banqueting facility and other marketing initiatives which generate funds that can be properly and usefully deployed towards improvements and the provision of better standards of service and facilities for people employed for long hours in this place. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House


and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who represents the Commission, should take account of that important point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was right to mention what I consider to be the curious inclusion of "parliamentary bodies" in the Ibbs report. Their presence is anomalous and there is no rhyme or reason for their inclusion except perhaps that the Treasury was interested in divesting itself of responsibility.

Mr. Anderson: I understand that the genesis of this proposal was a Treasury afterthought. It was a tidying operation undertaken by someone who did not know how such bodies operate, but who thought that their inclusion made a tidier administrative arrangement.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point and it is interesting to have that confirmation. It could only have been a tidying up exercise as it is singularly inappropriate for the grant in aid to such bodies as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British American Parliamentary Group and the History of Parliament Trust to be so included. They do not represent services provided to Members but are things that Members do while they are here. The purpose of the Ibbs report and our debate tonight should be the business of providing facilities and services to Members, and operating the Palace of Westminster. Therefore, it is totally anomalous to waste time even thinking about such groups. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will recognise the powerful point that I hope I have made.
I must stop now because I have spoken for longer than I meant to—I apologise. There is an opportunity to make changes that could be helpful to the Palace of Westminster and Parliament, so we should get on with the job.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) reminded us that we have gradually taken over aspects of the royal palace. We owe a debt to people such as Charlie Pannell and Arthur Bottomley, who has already been mentioned. I foresee my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) coming within that tradition. They are right to goad us and enliven our debates as they do.
I am a little worried about a number of issues, and will rapidly outline them in staccato fashion. Has the relationship between the Lords and the Commons, particularly in respect of the building, been satisfactorily determined by the proposals? It is not within our powers. It is morally right and necessary that, if we do not come within the health and safety at work regulations and the provisions for food safety for a good reason, we parallel them as far as practically possible. Nothing else can be acceptable, and that must be achieved within a certain timetable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned our staff. Why is there still no creche in the Palace of Westminster? I do not understand why, and perhaps the Lord President will tell us why when he winds up. If there is room for a television control room and other facilities, surely we can provide a creche, because the lack

of one affects our staff more than us. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Crown Agents building which is almost opposite the Victoria Tower. I am not sure of that magnificent building's future, but it might be useful for a number of different purposes.
I am glad to see you, Mr. Speaker, back in the Chair, and I shall revert to the point I made when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, who —I am sorry to say—is not present. As he rightly said, it would be intolerable for the Clerk or the Speaker to have to spend a lot of time on administrative matters—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is entering the Chamber on cue. I do not know the amount of time they spend on such issues, and I would not be so impertinent as to ask, but, with the ever-widening responsibilities of you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerk, I guess that it is happening more often. Decisions are often passed up, and we must, to a degree, protect you from that. To an extent, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—he is fundamentally right. However, the final judgments of priorities and how things work must be related to the prime Officers of the House—Mr. Speaker and the Clerk. They must advise Members on priorities or make decisions when Members devolve responsibility to the Commission or those Officers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South was wrong when he responded to my intervention. I said that it all happens here in the Chamber; my hon. Friend said that it did not. It may not happen, through the usual channels or in relation to people of influence, but it happens here de jure. My hon. Friend mentioned the powers of the various services committees and subcommittees. The powers that they have, or might not have in future—and which I wish them to retain—are determined by motions on the Order Paper discussed on the Floor of the Chamber.
All sorts of measures go through late at night or at about 3.30 pm at the beginning of public business that deserve examination. They should take place here, and if they do not happen here in fact, they happen de jure. This debate is an example. The Floor of this Chamber is the hub of a many-spoked wheel and the Standing Orders correspond to the ball-bearings in the hub. It must be for the House and its Officers to make the final decisions on priorities to do with services, which provide us with the means of proper debate and decision.
All this may mean some comprehensive financial organisation—but there are dangers, such as those mentioned in connection with the Refreshment Department. And what about Hansard? Is it to be run as a service to Members or as a service to democracy? If the latter, how far should it be subsidised? I remember after the war being able to pick up Hansard on bookstalls for half a crown—quite a lot then. Nowadays one probably could not find it on a bookstall and it would certainly cost much more than half a crown, but with the televising of the House, Hansard will be important. All our papers, such as Command Papers, which are technically papers of the House, are also public papers, so we are paying not just for the House but for democracy.
Despite what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, Ibbs will turn the five Committees into consumer relations Committees instead of Select Committees of this House, armed with all their powers—

Mr. John Garrett: Hear, hear.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend agrees—as, I believe, does the Leader of the House. The Committee may have the powers to investigate and advise the Commission as at present, but their importance should not be diminished, and I am a little uneasy about the future suggested for them.
The services of the House are vital for us to do our democratic job. All too easily, we take for granted the enormous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes in the offices of all our chief Officers and Departments, and of our staff, who perhaps serve us most and are therefore the most deserving. I hope to hear about a creche from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I apologise to the House for the fact that I was unable to be here for the opening speeches.
I welcome this report. When the questionnaire arrived on my desk last summer, I fell on it with cries of joy. At long last, I thought, someone had realised that there are some problems with this place and with the way it works. I filled it in with great relish and gusto.
I had to ask myself what the House of Commons Commission was, because I did not know. No one told me. One of the first things that I learned when I entered this place was that no one tells anyone anything. One has to ask, especially in the Tea Room, where one might hope to find an answer. It seemed to me that these problems arose because no one was responsible for telling anyone anything.
I also had to ask myself what on earth the Services Committee was and how it interacted with the Commission. I found some answers, believe it or not, in the report by Sir Robin Ibbs.
There seems to be no chain of command in the various services. To find out something, Members first have to find out which office deals with it, and then find their way to that office. They then have to discover who in that office can deal with their problem. The trouble is, they do not know who that is. When I first came here, I knew only one Clerk both by sight and by name, and that only because he was a member of the Chelsea reel club.
When I first arrived, I was given a book with the splendid title, "Manual of Procedure in the Public Business". I was told to take it away and read it, but I am afraid that Jeffrey Archer got in my way.
For example, I know that the Librarian is called Dr. David Menhennet. He must be an efficient man, because the Library is one of the best-run services in the House. I have sometimes thought that I would like to send Dr. Menhennet a Christmas card to compliment him and his staff on the wonderful job they do, but I have been inhibited from doing so, because I do not know who Dr. Menhennet is or what he looks like.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is the hon. Gentleman's fault.

Mr. Summerson: Let me develop the point.
There seems to be a great divide between Members and those who supply the services. For example, if the hon. Gentleman goes to the far end of the Tea Room at lunch time, he will be glared at by any number of people who

reckon it is their territory. Could he put his hand on his heart and say that he knows who they are, from which Department they come and what job they do?

Mr. Banks: Yes.

Mr. Summerson: The hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have.

Mr. Banks: Yes, and I will stay here longer than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Summerson: Under the heading "Findings" paragraph (d) says:
The mechanisms for getting things done are not sufficiently clearly understood or used. Many Members seem ignorant of the routes that are available for solving problems or achieving change within the House.
I was grateful for those lines.
I move swiftly to the subject of offices. Offices in this place can be summed up in one word—disgraceful. When one first arrives in the House, the allocation system seems strange. I was told that, not only was there a large and formidable lady in the Serjeant at Arms' Department to be propitiated, but having propitiated her, I then had to propitiate a Whip of my own party, and I did not know whom to go to first.
I would like a fax of my own. One would think that in these days that was not too much to ask, but my office is so small that I have nowhere to put one. Two days ago, I had to send a fax to someone in Saudi Arabia on behalf of a constituent. I had to go to the post office in Central Lobby and send my fax. I was presented with a bill for £9·20 and I then had to return to my office and fill in a form in order to recover the cost from the Fees Office.
I have many more points to make, but unfortunately time is running out. I just want to touch on catering. The catering staff do a good job in difficult circumstances. To give one example, I was in the Tea Room just before lunch time when I saw the lettuce arriving. The lettuce arrived in a yellow plastic bucket half full of water. The lettuce was plucked out of the bucket and deposited in a bowl. When I took some out to put on my plate, I found that everything else was swimming in half an inch of water. I do not blame the staff: that was entirely due to the disgraceful kitchen facilities in this place.
I approve the report and its conclusions. This place is a museum, and that is how it should be in future. We need a brand new facility, and we should leave this place to the Americans and the Japanese.

Mr. Tony Banks: I love following the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). I am surprised that he did not add as one of his demands at the end of his speech a request for a tape so that he could mime to it in the Chamber. If he wants to turn this place into a museum, there will always be a treasured place for him in it, resembling as he does Mr. Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary private secretary.
There is an atmosphere of surrealism in having this debate while all hell is breaking loose in the Gulf. If this debate does not convince Saddam Hussein that we have all taken leave of our collective senses and frighten the life out of him, I do not know what will. But I do not think that we should be in any way critical of the fact that we are having such a debate. It is not an escape from reality, rather a way of making the point that we need resources in


this place to enable us to do our job efficiently and to represent the people who send us here.
There is something very therapeutic about having a good whinge, but we must go further. I was struck by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), who said that the problem has existed for far too long and that it is time to stop talking and do something about it. I did not fall on the MORI opinion poll with glee and delight, as did the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I do not know what he does for thrills, but filling in MORI opinion polls does not get me too worked up or excited, and perhaps it was remiss of me not to complete that questionnaire. However, when I saw the results, I realised that was unnecessary, because my right hon. and hon. Friends adequately represented my own views. It did not need an opinion poll to discover that 66 per cent. of Members of Parliament think that the accommodation available for them and the staff in this place is absolutely appalling. We know that is true, because we experience it on a day-to-day basis.
We are not asking for luxury suites, only for single offices in which we can work with a couple of staff, and perhaps hold meetings with one or two constituents at a time and talk privately about their personal matters and complaints. It is impossible to achieve privacy in this building. We are not asking for the moon when we make a request to be provided with single offices.
I share an office with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the shadow Arts Minister. In that one room, he accommodates a small army of assistants, and thanks to a generous £100,000 grant from Paul Hamlyn, my hon. Friend has the la test in super technology. I sometimes find it impossible to find a place at my own desk. The office looks rather like the Pentagon's headquarters for the Gulf action group, with all the lights flickering on and off.
I attempted to find out how I could obtain a single office, and did all the things that it says in the Ibbs report. I went to the Whips, and asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) what I should do to obtain one. I did not get very far. Finally, I said to him, "Ray, I will give you a hundred quid if you will let me have an office of my own." He looked at me with total disdain. I am not sure whether he did so because he was totally offended by my suggestion, or because he thought that the amount offered was ridiculously small. In any event, that cannot be the right way to go about securing a facility that should be the right of every Member of Parliament.
A new building is to be available shortly, but it will not be enough. It does not offer enough space to meet our requirements, although it is a handsome building and I commend the architects. That profession usually talks only about the need to construct new shapes, but that building is entirely in sympathy with those that surround it, and I commend the Services Committee, architects and builders concerned.
There is a vacant building available not a hundred miles from here, on the other side of the river, called County hall. Given that the preposterous proposal to turn it into a luxury hotel has hit the deck, is it not time to re-examine the possibility of using that building for our offices? The Services Committee considered that proposal in the past, but there was no chance of it being adopted because of the total opposition by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when she was Prime Minister. Thankfully, we have thrown off that particular burden,

and as that right hon. Lady is no longer Prime Minister, perhaps we can reconsider the prospect of using County hall, which could be connected to this place by an underwater travelator. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) laughs. I know that the members of my Front Bench can walk on water, but the rest of us would need to use a travelator.

Mr. Spearing: Or a ferry.

Mr. Banks: Except that I cannot see how we could use a ferry when we have only eight minutes to reach the Lobby. My hon. Friend is a cyclist and much healthier than I am, and he could probably manage that—but I do not fancy my chances.
I also think it is ludicrous that all Members of Parliament should be given the same research and secretarial allowances—which I agree are too small anyway—when they have disparate work loads. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and myself represent constituencies that weigh the votes for the Labour party, and consequently work ourselves to death. I am sure that that is true also of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, though they do not weigh the votes for the Labour party in his constituency. In any event, we weigh our constituents' problems. It is preposterous that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South get the same accommodation as someone who has nothing like the range or degree of problems that we have in Newham.
Every constituency should be examined and banded, and there should be a different way of paying allowances which takes into consideration the problems that hon. Members have within their constituencies—problems that need resources, space and staff to tackle them efficiently. That would not be for the greater glorification of the individual Member of Parliament, but to provide a service adequate to deal with constituents' problems, which is what they expect from their Members of Parliament.
I must sit down now because the Front Bench have demanded it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a loyal member of the party and I always obey the Front Bench. I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that there is a feeling afoot that the Front Benches of the Government in office and of the Government in waiting do not want Back Benchers to operate efficiently because they become a nuisance for the Government. They deliberately deprive us of the resources that we all know we desperately need. The time for whingeing is over. Now is the time for action, and I invite my hon. Friend to go to the Dispatch Box and to tell us what the next Labour Government will do.

Dr. John Cunningham: This has certainly been a lively and amusing debate and has been mainly to the point. We cannot say that about all the debates which take place in this Chamber. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for setting out clearly the background findings and recommendations of the Ibbs report at the beginning of the debate. Like him, I am a member of the Commission; I thought that I had better get that on the record at the outset.
Because of the very serious events in the Gulf, these matters may hardly be at the forefront of many hon. Members' minds, and of even fewer of our constituents' minds. However, they are relevant to us and to the people


that we come here to represent. As most hon. Members know, the remit of the report concerns the management and decision-making structure for the services of the House, rather than the services themselves. That is what we asked Sir Robin Ibbs and his colleagues to consider. We thought that, if we got the decision-making process right, it was more likely, although not guaranteed, that we would get the services we need.
Within that narrow but important remit, the report contains a number of specific recommendations, and I hope that the House will support them all. I supported the review at all stages, and I expressed my thanks to Sir Robin and his team.
When the former Leader of the House—the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe)—approached me, I readily agreed that Sir Robin should be asked to conduct the inquiry. He was ably assisted by Donald Limon, John Collins, Diana Goldsworthy and John Woods. I know that they found that the House was full of interesting and well-informed people; I suspect that they found that one or two of them were Members of Parliament.
For some time, it has been evident, certainly to me—it has become more evident since I became shadow Leader of the House—that there has not been a coherent approach to the management of services and the problems that we face in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said, the House is not an aggressive legislature. I regret to say that, but it is true, and I have to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that, if he wants the things that he is talking about, the first step is to elect a Government willing to concede more powers to the House of Commons. That is not easy to achieve, but it would certainly be one of my principal objectives.

Mr. Jopling: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the setting up of the departmental Select Committees as we know them has given more power to the House of Commons in the second half of the 20th century than anything else?

Dr. Cunningham: I am a supporter of departmental Select Committees, but I do not really regard the House as having reached the 20th century. We seem to have missed it out, and we shall be lucky if we make it into the 21st, judging by the way in which we conduct our affairs.
The Ibbs remit did not include making us more effective as Members of Parliament. That would have been an impossible task for some, but in any event it is a job that we must do for ourselves. If we do not challenge and scrutinise the Executive as effectively as we should, we ourselves should give thought to how we approach those activities.
The recommendations in the report are, however, a useful first step towards the development of a more coherent approach to the management of our affairs. I certainly believe that no proposal for reforming the House can progress without first addressing the need for an improved administrative framework and decision-making process. Whatever changes we want—and I share the aspirations of many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, Conservative Members—we shall never get to first base without an effective decision-making process.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke of the role played by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. Let me say again how important his role was, and how important the role of the present Leader of the House will be, in seeing the proposals through. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked Sir Robin Ibbs to conduct this review, and his support and guidance as Leader of the House and a member of the Commission was unfailing.
The findings of the report, explored by a number of hon. Members, are a graphic illustration of the everyday problems and frustrations that face Members, Officers and staff who work in the Palace of Westminster. I have always recognised that it is a great privilege to be an elected Member of Parliament, but it is no big deal to have to work in the conditions available to us here. The MORI employees who carried out the research that provided some of the back-up for the report must have been wryly amused at some of the things that they discovered here. I found the research itself very useful, but I suspect that the researchers—with the exception of Bob Worcester, who knows this place very well—may have been not only amused but amazed by some of what they found and some of what Members tell them. The list is, of course, familiar to most of us.
At present, Members have no clear understanding of how the policy for services is decided. That is hardly surprising when, as we have heard, responsibilities have been divided between the Select Committee on House of Commons Services, the Leader of the House and the Commission itself. Members, particularly new Members, do not understand the mechanisms for getting things done. That favours what might be termed "those in the know" —and to be in the know in this place usually means having to spend an awfully long time here. The MORI work dramatically illustrates the point: only 14 per cent. of Members with three years' service or less described the House as a good or fairly good place in which to work. The figure rises to 50 per cent. in the case of Members with more than 20 years' service.
Although theoretically I belong to the group of those "in the know", with more than 20 years' service, I share the views of the group of newer Members who find this place inadequate, to say the least. The confusion felt by new Members is particularly familiar to me, because my party won a series of important by-elections last year, and since then I have often been called on for advice by my new colleagues and found them bemused—frequently dazed —by the arcane nature of the House's operations.
The umbrella role for the Commission proposed by the Ibbs report will, in my view, result in a better co-ordinated policy for improving services. I remind the House that we have many excellent and loyal staff here at Westminster. The report makes that clear when it says:
There is a reservoir of goodwill among staff, derived from a strong desire to serve Members, which could be directed to greater advantage.
The truth is that, although we have many excellent people, they too are frustrated by their inability to give a more efficient and effective service to Members.
When I first came here in June 1970, I was given the distinct impression by some people—I do not intend to name them, and they have all retired now—that this place was not really run for the benefit and convenience of


Members. It seemed to have an entirely different purpose in their minds. Fortunately, little of that attitude remains today.
The proposed transfer to the Commission of responsibility for the Parliamentary Works Office may have profound effects upon the industrial staff in the House. In that regard, bearing in mind the good will to which I have referred, consultation with those people through their trade unions and existing machinery will be of obvious importance and significance if we are to achieve the acceptance of the changes that will be essential to their success.
In addressing the attempt to co-ordinate policy for services, it is also important to ensure that it is backed up by requisite increases in funds available to the Commission. I agreed with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South in what I took to be a privileged preview of his imminent book. I look forward to reading the other chapters when he eventually publishes it.
However, I disagreed with him on one important thing —financial control. Central to the report is a clear statement that, if a disagreement arises with the Treasury over the budget, in the last resort it should be resolved by the House. We have argued and fought long and hard in the Commission on behalf of our colleagues to get that agreed by the Treasury, and I think that it is very important. It is set out in annexe F of the report, and it ensures that, in the last resort, if there is no agreement, hon. Members can decide on expenditure.
The Ibbs report suggests that there can be no confidence in the financial management systems of the House as they presently exist. Hon. Members have little confidence that the sums spent are appropriate to the needs of the House or that they are well spent. The report's proposals to reform the Board of Management to provide it with an enhanced corporate management role and to appoint a director of finance are important to the delivery of better services. The report's recommendations, which I touched upon earlier, are an important first step—only a first step—to undertaking the gamut of wider reforms needed to make the House an effective national legislature for the 21st century. Even after these reforms, the House of Commons will remain, to quote Sir Robin, a "complex anachronism".
I share the view of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) that this building will never be adequate to provide the services and facilities that a modern legislature requires. I hope that cross-party consensus on these issues will give us the sort of springboard we need to come to grips in a sustained and prolonged way with the need for wider reform of practices, services and procedures in the House.
The Ibbs report has already kindled debate among Members, particularly Opposition Members but generally throughout all parties, and in the national press on the need for fundamental reform. I recognise that there may be potential conflicts between the role of historic and senior Officers of the House and the new management proposals set out in the report, and the Commission will need to address them.
Hon. Members referred to the lack of a properly co-ordinated information technology service to members. The computer Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services, which I have the honour to

chair, produced a report that made excellent recommendations. It was a unanimous report, and I hope that we shall soon have an opportunity to approve it. I ask the Leader of the House to find time for that, so that, at last, we can begin to tackle that job.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) said, our constituents—who may be elderly and may have travelled for hours to get here—sometimes must queue for hours in the rain or freezing cold. I know that we are addressing that, but it is long overdue. We must address other issues, such as the lack of child care facilities for staff and Members and having to pay to telephone the institutions of the European Community, whereas its members can call us at the expense of their own Parliament.
As the research in the Ibbs report shows, accommodation is the issue that exercises most Members. Their responses are particularly disturbing. Almost 60 per cent. of Members describe the House as a fairly poor place in which to work. Conditions for our staff are even worse. Accommodation is unacceptable and would be seen as such in almost any other institution in the country. Few Members cannot tell at least one horrendous anecdote.
We have the problem of a historic, evocative, architecturally magnificent building, which, internally, will never be adequate to fulfil the increasing demands that are being placed on it. The make-do-and-mend job of buildings here and buildings there will not resolve the problem. I was attracted by what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, and we should reconsider that.
I commend the Ibbs report as a positive approach to the problems and as a good first step. I hope that it will be quickly implemented.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): This is mainly an opportunity for colleagues who are not Members of the Commission to express their views on the Ibbs report, so I have agreed to be brief.
I welcome the debate. The fact that I have arranged it so soon after the publication of the report shows the importance that I attach to the subject and my desire to get on with implementing the report in the light of the general reaction of the House to it.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has outlined the history. It is no criticism of previous reforms of the House to say that it is now necessary to bring our arrangements into line with the needs of the 1990s, both in terms of achieving a modern management structure and of ensuring—here I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd)—that we take advantage of modern facilities to ensure the best practicable service to Members and that we, as Members, carry out our services in the best way for the public at large.
That is the general purpose of the report, but there are two particular reasons why it is important that we give priority to implementing it. First, many hon. Members, and certainly we as a Government, have been urging industry, commerce, the professions and many others to modernise their systems and practices and have frequently legislated to that effect. It must be right that we put our own house in order in the same way.
Several detailed comments on issues, frustrations and dissatisfactions have been expressed. I share several of them, particularly about accommodation. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the report is on decision-making processes, management structures and financial disciplines, not the detailed issues that the Committees will have to deal with. I agree with the hon. Member that we must get those right first.
I shall preface my second point by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on gamekeepers turned poachers. I am not sure that his remarks were entirely apt, given the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that the parliamentary bodies might be better if they were still under the control of the Treasury, which is more cost-conscious and tightfisted, rather than the House of Commons. It is important that we carry out our role as leader by fully recognising our responsibilities to the House. That also means that we should all be responsible in our approach. That is why I say with some diffidence, speaking as a former Chief Secretary, that my second point is that one of the Government's hallmarks has been to insist throughout our period in office that we should constantly strive to ensure value for taxpayers' money and to insist on cost effectiveness in our expenditure programmes.
At the same time, Parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the departmental Select Committees—not always consistently —insists that Departments and other public bodies conform to high standards of financial management and that they discharge their responsibility for spending taxpayers' money by putting strong emphasis on the need to obtain good value for money. That is what we are practising in the Ibbs' approach to the "next steps" programme in the civil service. It is right that we in the House should be prepared to practise what we preach. The Ibbs report gives us an appropriate blueprint.
That is the background and it is why I should like to join with those who congratulated and thanked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) on the part that he played in grasping the issue as Leader of the House. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the Ibbs committee was set up mainly because of my right hon. and learned Friend's initiative. As I was not a member of the Commission at the time, I believe that it is in order for me to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the Commission on taking on board so readily the need to make improvements and on carrying the initiative forward so fast. My right hon. and learned Friend asked me to apologise to the House for unavoidably not being able to be here, but he was specifically anxious to join me in paying a warm tribute to Sir Robin Ibbs and his team, who have done an admirable job not only in getting to the heart of the problems but in presenting their conclusions and recommendations so straightforwardly.
Some hon. Members expressed criticism of the Ibbs report. Of course, it is not a perfect answer, but the general view is that it is a considerable advance. We must bear in mind that Sir Robin Ibbs is a knowledgeable business man with experience in several major companies of the kind of

work which he undertook for us. In the short time available, I should like to comment on some points and indicate the way in which we should go forward.
First, in taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), the new structure which is outlined is a much better one in enabling us to make a clear and proper distinction between the policy-making bodies and committees and the executive bodies of the House. I take brief issue—I fear that I must be brief because of the time—with the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who criticised some of the new Services Committee approaches. It is important to recognise that the new Finance and Services Committee will also be a consumer committee in the sense that it will represent Members of the House in making policy recommendations and so on. It has a representational and policy-making role.
I welcome the recommended changes for the Committee structure. The shift from being semi-administrative bodies to more policy-oriented bodies is right, because it separates Members' responsibility for decisions about what services should be provided from heads of Departments' responsibilities for carrying out those decisions. This will provide much needed clarity and a more effective and responsive decision-making structure.
Secondly, I share Sir Robin Ibbs' conviction that appointing the financial director to install sound financial systems and management and, in time, a single House of Commons budget under the Commission's control is fundamental to improving the House's administration. Although the timetable proposed by Sir Robin Ibbs is challenging, I am sure that all involved will do their best to achieve it. This will provide the Commission with the necessary information to reach sensible decisions and, by bringing together responsibility for resources and responsibility for expenditure, will give the Commission the authority that it needs to exercise fully its role for managing the services of the House. That is an important change.
I am sorry that I do not have time to deal with all matters, but I want to commend statements in the report about accommodation. Of course, we all have our criticisms of accommodation—

Mr. John Garrett: rose

Mr. MacGregor: I do not have time to go into the hon. Gentleman's point now—[Interruption.] I do not think so. Accommodation was seen in many ways to be the key to many complaints in the House. It is important to concentrate on what the report said about it. Of course, we all know the constraints and the difficulties under which people have had to operate. The important point is that the House cannot take informed and responsible decisions about accommodation unless it is responsible for the works programme and its funding. The importance of parliamentary works is well taken in the Ibbs report.
The approach that Sir Robin suggests, involving the development of a 10 to 15-year rolling programme on which expenditure provision and estimates will be based, will assist the House to order its priorities and demonstrate value for money. If will provide the opportunity to avoid any unreasonable peaks of expenditure and, through the agreement of expenditure programme estimates with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will allow the House to give full regard, as it should, to the general public


expenditure climate in any year. Annex F is an important step forward. I have, of course, discussed the matter with the Chief Secretary and I can confirm, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, that the Government accept annex F as the basis for taking this forward.
Many of our accommodation problems will take time and they are immense. The problems of space and of the availability of space are a key part of them. To be sure of getting the right results, it is vital that there should be a proper long-term plan and that, once funding is obtained, we stick to it. The House will have to acquire professional competence to reach sensible decisions about what is needed and that is where the appointment of a works director is so important.

Mr. John Garrett: Controlled by the Government?

Mr. MacGregor: Under the control of the House.
In the last minute, I want to refer briefly to how I see matters being taken forward. I have already shown my clear support for the proposals in general and the agreement of the Government as a whole to them. There is, of course, a great deal of detail still to be sorted out, which the Commission will have to do, and a number of the comments made tonight are helpful. We will certainly take them on board and take into account the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
There has been a general suggestion of a desire to get on now with the thrust of the report. Two of the first crucial moves will be the recruitment and appointment of the director of finance and of the director of works. Following that, I want the changes in the Committee structure put in place as soon as possible. Subject to the constraints of the parliamentary timetable, I hope that we can get agreement to the changes to the relevant Standing Orders towards the end of the current Session of Parliament so that the new arrangements will be ready for the 1991–92 Session.
I want to tell the House briefly that the recommendations in the report are now also being considered in another place. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has informed me that there is little doubt that the other place will wish to co-operate with us in any proposals that we seek to implement.
The report comes at a time when there is much change in the management structures of many different organisations—change frequently brought about, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out, by the possibilities of new technology. There is an increasing feeling among hon. Members, which I share, that services for visitors, for Members and for members of staff need to be substantially updated and improved. It is right that we should be getting the House into the right shape, operationally, organisationally and physically, for all the tasks that it will have to perform in the 1990s and beyond. This report and its proposals provide an excellent vehicle for doing just that.
It is worth remembering that the ideas in the report stem largely from the views put forward by many who work in the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Copeland. The changes will be a great improvement. If they work—I believe that they can—they will benefit everyone. The sense of the House has been a desire to get on with the changes in the management systems so that we

can achieve the improvements that we seek. In that sense, I welcome our debate and I hope that we can get on with the implementation of the report.

Mr. Beith: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer some of the points that the Leader of the House was unable to fit into his remarks and to speak on behalf of the Commission.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) pointed to reservations about whether the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other groups that are now funded from the Treasury should continue to be funded in that way or transferred to the House. There was some anxiety about such a change. My feeling is that, in principle, it is desirable for a body representing Parliament to be funded by Parliament rather than by the Executive and that the particular status of the House, with its freedom from cash limits, might, in some cases, be to the advantage of those bodies. However, I recognise that it is a matter of legitimate concern to long-established bodies and the Commission is not trying to push them around. It would be very willing to continue the discussions that are already taking place on that and to proceed only on the basis of a great deal of further discussion where necessary.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who has had a long interest in these matters, revealed himself to be—as we all knew he was—a re-advocate of the Compton report of 1974. The proposals in that report were rejected, in important respects, by hon. Members at the time in the form of the Bottomley commission; in particular, the proposal for a chief executive was rejected then. Interestingly, it has now been rejected not by Members of Parliament, but by an outside man with business experience and by his team. They came to the conclusion that, although such a proposal might have been appropriate in a body primarily responsible for delivering services to the community, such as a Government Department or a business, it was not appropriate for the House with its particular responsibility for legislation, and for supervising and questioning the Government. He regarded the federal management structure as more appropriate. He reached that conclusion only after examining the way in which the House operated, and his comments on the matter are bound to be influential.
The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) supported the main Ibbs recommendations for the same reasons as I did—that the House, not the Government, should be in control of the services that it needs. His interest in technology assessment is well known and often argued. I think that he could advance his case better were responsibility more clearly focused. In the end, it will be for the House to decide whether the facilities that he wants should be funded by the House, on the scale that he and other hon. Members recommend. The proposals in the Ibbs report provide a much better mechanism for giving advice to the Commission on such matters than is currently available to it.
I welcome the zeal and enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and I hope that they will not be blunted by experience of the long-established institutions and traditions of this place. Such zeal and enthusiasm could be channelled more effectively under a system whereby it was clear who was


responsible for getting something done. I take seriously what the hon. Lady said about working conditions, hygiene, cleaning and environmental health.
I did not say that Crown immunity was too complicated a subject with which to deal; I merely said that it was too complicated a subject for me to give an off-the-cuff explanation of precisely how the brief summary that we were given was inaccurate and misleading. Although the matter is complicated, it is important and should be dealt with. With other members of the Commission, I continue to seek further consideration of it and to ensure that, in any case, we act in accordance with the restrictions to which we would be subject if we did not have certain elements of Crown immunity.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has much experience of the advisory committee approach from his work on the Library Sub-Committee. I was very interested in his comments and in his support for the Ibbs proposals on the basis of his long experience of our committee structure. His comments about the Refreshment Department will certainly be taken seriously when we consider the Touche Ross report on the future of that Department.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the participation of another place. That matter is still under discussion and must clearly depend on decisions made in the other place. He referred to stationery and to the massive increases in the price of House of Commons papers in which the general public are interested. That is something over which, at the moment, we have no control. One of the merits of the proposals is that in future these matters will have to be decided by the House. We will still have to have regard to cost considerations. They will not disappear. The cost of printing will not evaporate when it becomes the responsibility of the House. But at least it will be a matter for the House to decide in a way which has not been possible hitherto—as is the case with some of the other matters discussed.
The hon. Member for Newham, South also made a more general point about Committees. Their importance will continue, but the subject Select Committees should not attempt to manage. A hopeless confusion of minds and responsibilities will be created if Committees of hon. Members who seek better services become, whether by accident or design, a feature of management. That will mean that managers will not take responsibility; they will not be encouraged to exercise responsibility and will not develop their ability to do so.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) kindly owned up to being one of those who do not know much about these things. He illustrated well the frustrations that many Members feel which the proposals go some way to address.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made me think that I had better get my diving suit ready for travelling on the underwater travelator that he has in mind. The issues that he raised ranged more widely than the subject of the Ibbs report.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made clear his support for the proposals on behalf of the Opposition. He talked about his own experiences with new by-election victors. I won a by-election in 1973. My seat was one of a series of by-election gains made by my party, the result of which was the increasing overcrowding of a very small room which we shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith)—another of the by-election victors. I am sure that the House can imagine the increasing compression that occurred in the small broom cupboard that had been found to accommodate us.
The Leader of the House expressed the Government's support for the proposals. I am grateful for the way in which he and his predecessor have pursued the matter and supported what is, without question, a shift in responsibility from the Executive to the House.
This has been a useful debate.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to say what is the next step?

Mr. Beith: The Leader of the House has gone most of the way to explaining what needs to be done and has given a timetable for implementation. Many of the proposals on the management side will be pursued by an implementation officer from among the senior staff of the House. Arrangements are being made to appoint them, as has been said this evening.
The debate has been helpful in giving the proposals a fair wind and I hope that they will go ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report to the House of Commons Commission on House of Commons Services (House of Commons Paper No. 38).

CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Ian Stewart be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Homelessness

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

10 pm

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I wish to take this opportunity further to draw the attention of the House to a subject which had a poignant topicality just before Christmas because of its biblical connotations—homelessness. After Christmas the problem has not gone away and I feel that it should be kept before us.
The genesis of my desire to bring homelessness to the attention of the House was a question to the Minister for Housing and Planning about the statistics of homelessness. The issue raised in my question was never resolved. No one knows how many homeless people there are in Britain. The official statistics published for the Department of the Environment record only homeless households which apply to and are accepted by local authorities. Many do not qualify to be accepted, including people without children and under retirement age. Non-priority groups are at least as great in numbers as priority groups, so one can double the official statistics of 120,000 homeless households. That is the figure for 1989. If one accepts that two thirds of homeless families have dependent children and that the average household consists of three people, it becomes clear that the official statistics involve approximately 300,000 people. If one adds in those who are not accepted by local authorities, the figure rises to 500,000. That is the number of people who became homeless in 1989.
The problem is growing. Ten years ago the official figure was 53,000. The average annual rate of increase in homelessness acceptances between 1976 and 1988—again according to Department of the Environment statistics—was 8 per cent. for London but 16 per cent. for other metropolitan districts. Two conclusions can be drawn: first, the curve is upwards and, secondly, homelessness is a national problem. We should remember that those are only the official statistics recorded by the Department of the Environment.
I wish to consider who are the homeless people, where they are, why they are homeless and the cost of keeping them without homes. I shall then examine some of the initiatives taken and conclude by suggesting other initiatives that might be effective. The homeless are generally people on low income or no income. They are vulnerable groups such as the migrant unemployed who move to the cities for work but are unable to find homes and people who suffer from discrimination in the private rented sector such as families with small children, pregnant women, single parents and ethnic minorities. Many such people can be found in the official statistics, but many others cannot. The unofficial statistics include victims of the present system of welfare benefits such as 16 to 17-year-olds who do not qualify for benefits. Young people receive benefits on a sliding scale based on age, but, of course, rents are not based on a sliding scale.
The unofficial figures also include people of all ages who are in a Catch 22 situation. They cannot afford the deposit on accommodation because benefits are no longer paid in advance and it is difficult to claim benefits if one has no address. Let us not forget the social inadequates, not least the pitiful cohort of mentally disturbed who are discharged on to the streets without proper support. Huge numbers of

these latter groups do not show up in the official statistics. There is also the phenomenon of the 1980s, and particularly the late 1980s, the mortgage defaulters whose number has quintupled over the past 10 years from approximately 20,000 to over 100,000 per annum. That is who they are.
Where are they? Those who are fortunate to be provided with accommodation are, in large numbers, in temporary accommodation of various kinds, such as hostels, short-life properties, mobile homes, bed-and-breakfast accommodation and, perhaps the most fortunate, in properties leased by local authorities from the private sector. That is the private sector leasing group to which I shall refer as PSL. I shall address further remarks to the bed-and-breakfast and PSL groups. Those not provided for find shelter either in overcrowded circumstances in the homes of family or friends, frequently dossing on floors—they include large numbers not counted in the official statistics—or, as we see if we go not far from the Chamber, they live rough on the streets.
Why are those people homeless? The simple answer is that there is a lack of accommodation for rent at a price which they can afford. One feature which most of them have in common is that they cannot contemplate purchasing accommodation. The statistics for rented accommodation as a proportion of the total housing stock are interesting. In 1981 there were 6.6 million public sector rented units; in 1990 there were only 5·5 million. In the private sector in 1981 there were 2·4 million rented units; in 1990 there were only 1·7 million. Admittedly, there has been a small rise in the housing association rented sector, from 456,000 in 1981 to 642,000 in 1990, but it is pitifully small and not enough to bridge the gap.
The most important contributing factor has been the huge number of council homes taken out of the stock under the right-to-buy legislation and the fact that councils have been prevented from using most of their capital receipts to build new council houses. National Economic Development Office statistics show that in 1980 council new starts were 41,000, complemented by 15,000 housing association new starts; in 1990 the total has gone down to 24,000, composed of 8,000 council new starts and 16,000 housing association new starts. The figures show a small but inadequate increase in housing association provision. The projections for 1992 are even more gloomy—a pitiful 3,000 new starts in the council sector and 2,000 in the housing association sector.
There is a cost in all this homelessness. First, there is a monetary cost. The Department of the Environment calculation for keeping a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as compared with building a new council house shows that in London the cost of a new build is £7,400 while the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is £11,315 per family. In other metropolitan districts, such as Knowsley, South, the difference is even more significant; the cost of a new build on average is £3,200 while the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is £9,490. Those are the Department's own statistics at 1988 prices.
Only this month the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, a reputable body, produced figures for the net cost per head of population of keeping people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It went up from 83p in 1988–89 to £1·50 in 1989–90, an increase of 80 per cent. The same set of statistics shows that the total net expenditure on homelessness in 1989–90 was equivalent to


£2·79 per head of population or, if translated into the cost per charge payer, £3·79. Some estimates suggest that the cost per charge payer could rise to £24 in London. All bets are off on this, of course, while the poll tax is still in the massage parlour.
I have listed the monetary costs of homelessness, but there is also a human cost. I recommend to the House two documents—"A Crying Shame", which concentrates mainly on the effects of homelessness on children and has been produced by the London Boroughs Association, and "Homeless Families and their Health", which was produced jointly by the Health Visitors Association and a committee of the British Medical Association. There is also much anecdotal evidence of damage to physical and mental health caused by homelessness and the dangers posed to the safety of children when in temporary accommodation. There is also evidence of a drift into crime and prostitution, both male and female, among young people caught in the homelessness trap. People who have no accommodation or live in inadequate accommodation often become victims of crime. Those human costs are also translated into further monetary costs when one calculates the demands that they produce on the welfare services and the health service.
There have been a number of Government initiatives. The document produced by Shelter, "No New Homes", tabulates 10 such initiatives from 1986 through to 1993. Credit must be given to the Government for those initiatives, but, welcome though they are, unfortunately they are often inadequate. The Government's own welfare benefit system as now structured compounds the problem. A series of discreet initiatives do not add up to an adequate and coherent policy on homelessness.
The estate action scheme was never adequate in scale and represented, not new money, but money top-sliced from the reduced housing investment programmes. It was also subject to task force criteria which did not necessarily meet local housing needs.
In December the autumn statement included a seemingly generous statement from the Minister for Housing and Planning of £81 million to housing associations to provide hostel and long-term accommodation in London. That money will have some effect, but only in London.
Private sector leasing was first limited by the Government to 10 years and then to three years. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 resulted in those leasing arrangements being set against borrowing approvals. In October 1990 the hon. Member for Worcestershire South (Mr. Spicer), then Minister for Housing and Planning, announced changes in the amount of subsidy to local authorities with the result that local authorities now tend to opt for bed-and-breakfast accommodation that attracts a higher subsidy. Outside London such accommodation does not attract a higher subsidy and any differences in costs must be passed on by the local authorities in higher rentals or on to the hard-pressed poll tax payer.
I have suggested that private sector leasing is preferable to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and in many ways it is, as the problems associated with bed-and-breakfast accommodation are well-known. However, at least monitoring procedures exist for such accommodation. No

such procedures operate for private sector leasing, but it should be remembered that short-term leasing of that sort still represents temporary accommodation and that it varies tremendously in quality. Guidelines and systems must be introduced to ensure the enforcement of quality.
What should be done? First, there should be a significant change in attitude. We must recognise that homelessness is a national problem and not one that merely affects London. It should also be recognised that recent initiatives have been ad hoc and marginal in their effect. There is also a need to face up to the scale of the problem and a serious attempt should be made to assess it. Local authorities should be allowed to play their proper role in co-operation with, and complementary to, other agencies in solving that problem. If we consider those implications, we see that a number of positive measures can be taken.
The code of guidance on homelessness should be strengthened in a number of ways on which I do not have the time to elaborate. We should extend the priority groups, and in particular strengthen provision for children. The code should be made statutory. We should not allow local authorities to be deemed to have discharged their responsibilities by providing temporary accommodation of various sorts. There should be a further look at the welfare benefit system to eliminate some of the anomalies that I mentioned earlier.
More money must be allocated to the local authorities and housing associations, not top-sliced, as hitherto, so that the limited initiatives taken so far can be taken further. The restrictions on private sector leasing, apart from those on quality control, should be revoked.
There are also a number of initiatives to be considered that need not cost money. We could freeze the rents-into-mortgages scheme until it can be seen that the crisis of homelessness is on the way to being solved. We could have a mortgages-into-rents scheme rather than let people lose their homes. The sale of council houses on the open market could be restricted where it can be shown that there is a problem of homelessness in the district. Most importantly, the embargo preventing local authorities from using more of the £7·3 billion capital receipts that have accrued since the right-to-buy legislation was introduced should be lifted. That extra money could be used for a crash programme, including using local authority new stocks, bringing back into use the thousands of voids in the public sector that need renovation before they can be occupied and purchasing similar voids, in whatever condition, in the private sector.
I make a special plea for a step that could be taken without any cost, and for which I understand there are moves afoot elsewhere: the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It contains nothing that is not covered by some other Act. Its repeal would mean that those who, at present, suffer the tragedy of being homeless and living rough on the streets would not be classed as outside the law and subject to the harassment that that entails.
The crisis of homelessness can be solved with an injection of money—that is necessary. But how much could be achieved with just a change of attitude and a little imagination? In the words of the document produced by the London Boroughs Association, which addresses itself particularly to the plight of homeless children, "It is a crying shame."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on his success in obtaining an opportunity so early in his parliamentary career to raise this important subject on the Adjournment of the House. I am only sorry that he resorted to the use of such misleading statistics and tendentious arguments. In the time available, I shall try to set the record straight on the Government's housing objectives and point to the considerable resources that we are devoting to housing over the next few years.
First and foremost, the Government are committed to ensuring that decent housing is within the reach of all families. The need to reduce homelessness underlies all our housing policy. It is good news that the total housing stock has risen by almost 2 million units since 1979—a fact conveniently and completely ignored by the hon. Gentleman in his selective reference to the reduction in the size of the rented sector. The ratio of homes to people has never been higher. Not only on Merseyside but across the country there is no overall housing shortage.
Most people want to own their own homes, and our policies, notably the right to buy, introduced in the face of consistent resistance from some local authorities, have brought home ownership within the reach of more people than ever before. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he favours the expansion of home ownership, but his opposition to the rents-to-mortgages scheme, still at an embryonic stage, suggests that he shares the hostility to it which is so widespread in his party.
We recognise that in some parts of the country there is a need for additional subsidised housing where people cannot afford to buy or cannot find private rented accommodation. This need not mean building more council houses. There are alternative ways of increasing provision of low-cost housing. Instead of relying on local authorities as the sole monopoly provider, we have encouraged them to play an enabling role through sponsorship or housing association schemes and by promoting locally the expansion of the private rented sector.
Housing associations are now the main providers of new subsidised housing. We have reformed housing associations finance to allow the maximum use of private money to supplement public funds. The resources available to the Housing Corporation have been increased from £1·1 billion this year to over £2 billion by 1993–94. These measures will permit a sustained increase in output of subsidised housing by housing associations from 21,000 units last year to about 40,000 by 1993–94.
It is also important to ensure that this substantial increase in output is directed to the areas of greatest need. In 1989 we carried out a review of the method used to allocate Housing Corporation resources between regions.
The total housing public expenditure programme remains very large. Public expenditure on housing next year, including local authorities' self-financed expenditure from receipts, will amount to more than £8 billion. Of this, £3 billion will be available for local authority housing capital investment. The mechanism for regional allocation of resources, the general needs index, has been revised, allowing improved targeting on areas with homelessness pressures. Another £3·5 billion will go on subsidising current expenditure, including rent rebates. The remaining

£ 1·5 billion goes to finance new house building by housing associations. This represents a very substantial public investment in housing, and is in addition to the £7 billion a year in tax relief to owner-occupiers.
The Government are frequently attacked for the decline in the overall size of the rented housing stock, in particular for the effects of allowing council tenants to buy their own houses. The crucial factor, however, is the total number of lettings to new tenants, which has remained relatively stable at about 500,000 per year. This is because there has been an increase in the rate of turnover of lettings, particularly in the private sector. In spite of sales of over 1 million council homes, total annual council lettings have fallen by only about 50,000 a year. It should also be recognised that many of those who bought their council houses would in any case have remained as tenants for many years.
Deregulation is also helping to slow down the decline of the private rented sector. Since we expanded the business expansion scheme in 1988 to cover companies specialising in residential lettings, about £550 million of new money has been raised from the private sector, which will provide about 10,000 houses. Housing benefit is, of couse, available, generally up to market rent levels, to assist those who have difficulty in meeting their full housing costs.
The hon. Member suggested that we should allow local authorities to spend more of their capital receipts from right-to-buy sales to finance new provision. This proposal, which we hear frequently, is based on a misunderstanding. The Government must regulate gross public expenditure, including spending from receipts, in the interests of managing the national economy. If authorities were allowed to use more of their receipts, the Government would have to reduce the total of new borrowing approvals and capital grants correspondingly to maintain the same level of total expenditure. This would mean that the pattern of expenditure would be determined mainly by where receipts happened to have arisen, and not necessarily in areas of greatest need.
The new rules that we have introduced require authorities to set aside part of their receipts for debt redemption, and the new power to take availability of receipts into account in making capital allocations means that about three quarters of authorities' total capital spending power derives from allocations made in accordance with assessed need, compared with only one third under the former system. So we are providing for more investment by the authorities that actually need it. Overall, we have reviewed housing policy, and we have taken steps to increase the supply of low-cost housing.
It is important to distinguish between those who are literally homeless—sleeping rough on the street without a roof over their head—and the larger number who are accepted as homeless by local authorities under the statutory provisions.
The most serious and acute symptom of homelessness is people sleeping rough, particularly in London. The Government are taking positive steps to deal with that. During the next three years, £96 million will be available to provide short-term direct access hostels for people on the streets and longer-term accommodation for people in existing hostels.
That initiative has been given a valuable impetus by the secondment to my Department of Nick Hardwick,


director of Centrepoint Soho, a leading voluntary body dealing with young homeless people who come to London from all parts of the United Kingdom.
The problem is at its worst in central London, so that is where we are concentrating initially. It is hard to be precise about numbers, but there are estimated to be between 2,000 and 3,000 people sleeping on London's streets, out of a total of about 5,000 throughout the country. In due course, we will consider how the initiative could be extended to other areas.
I have spent some time dealing with the initiatives that we are taking to reduce the number of people sleeping rough in London, but I must stress, since the hon. Member focused his remarks on this, that we are equally concerned to relieve the pressures that local authorities face in assisting homeless families who apply to them for help.
We are taking action on a number of fronts—to improve local management; to minimise the use of unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast hotels by allocating funds to bring empty accommodation back into use; to improve advice services aimed at preventing homelessness; and to ensure that a more efficient and consistent homelessness service is offered by local authorities.
Those measures will help all those people who are seeking better accommodation, regardless of whether they fall within the definition of statutory homeless. My Department would certainly take issue with the hon. Gentleman's claim that the official homeless figures understate the nature of the problem. If anything, the reverse is true, as many of the people who are in that category are adequately housed at present.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman quoted, quite unquestioningly, some of the misleading statistics provided recently by CIPFA and Shelter about the relative cost of new building and the cost of bed and breakfast. CIPFA has acknowledged that some of the recently publicised figures that it produced were wrong.
The Government's review of the homelessness legislation was published in November 1989. It concluded that the legislation was doing the job intended by Parliament. But it recognised that there was room for improved management of stock and handling of homelessness by local authorities.
Unfortunately, many local authorities, including Knowsley, still have a poor record of making proper use of their housing resources. There are about 100,000 empty local authority dwellings—about 2·4 per cent. of the total stock. In Knowsley, the figure is 5·3 per cent. We are therefore encouraging better management by the introduction of mandatory performance indicators which will allow tenants to assess how good a job the authority is doing as a landlord.
Even with the optimum use of stock, there are some areas where authorities need additional resources to help them to meet their statutory obligations. We are therefore making available considerable sums in the worst pressed areas in London and the south-east. Our prime objective is to reduce the use of bed-and-breakfast hotels for families. Priority is being given to schemes to bring empty local authority and housing association properties back into use.
Additional allocations of £300 million are being made over this year and next—£227 million will go to local authorities and £73 million to housing associations. So far, approval has been given to schemes totalling £157 million, which should provide around 7,500 additional lettings. We are looking for a similar level of output from the resources available next year. Part of the additional homelessness allocation will also go in support of cash incentive grants to encourage better-off tenants to move into owner-occupation.
We are also funding a national homelessness advice service co-ordinated through citizens advice bureaux, with technical support from Shelter and the Shelter Housing Aid Centre. We have expanded support to individual projects run by the voluntary sector which provide practical advice and assistance to help single homeless find temporary and permanent accommodation. This year, £2 million will be made available, about half of which will go to the advice service.
This has been something of a whistle-stop tour of the main initiatives that we are taking forward to help relieve and reduce homelessness. As I have explained, the most difficult area of all is that of rough sleeping. It is our aim that assistance should be available to anyone willing to take advantage of it so that, eventually, no one need sleep without a roof over his head.
We are also deeply concerned about the increasing number of households accepted as homeless by local authorities and the number of families forced to live in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have responded positively by allocating £300 million in additional resources to increase the supply of permanent housing and thus reduce authorities' need to use unsatisfactory temporary accommodation.
In addition, we have recognised the importance of helping those at risk before they actually become homeless by funding the national homelessness advice service, and we have assisted young and single homeless people to find temporary and permanent accommodation through increased funding of practical voluntary sector projects.
In total, those initiatives add up to a significant package of both housing and human resources that should have a positive impact in assisting those in greatest housing need.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.